Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:51 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 91):

Cheers, individuals like yourself put a lot of data in comment which is fantastic.

If we refer to the new thread Karel opened about Walsh's comment on 2nd hand A380s working for EI. It seems like Airbus isn't keen on cutting a deal that will provide new frames, so rather the cheaper acquisition costs of a 2nd hand one, and one that is still relatively new makes it profitable for routes like DUB - JFK. Airbus may not win new sales but protecting the 2nd hand market for these frames and this remains an unknown will still be a positive sign.
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:28 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 96):
If you gotta pee and you don't have the gumption to stand up and say excuse me and proceed to the toilet, then I don't know what to say... #firstworldproblems

That's not a problem as I always manage my bladder and liquid intake just prior to and during flight so I hardly have to go to the airloo for journeys under 5 hrs which are the vast majority of my sectors. My issue is being squeezed, especially so if my immediate neighbor, or even worse neighbors, are POSes. That's why I always request an aisle seat, and failing that, a window one so that I can at least lean to one side.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 95):
Look on the bright side: now you have a horror story to tell your grandchildren about

I'll keep that in mind.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 97):
The photo below illustrates how the A380 main deck can use more than the 248" cabin width without the "high chairs". The window seats are simply squashed into the sidewall curves.

Not great for your legs, that's for sure.

I wouldn't take any of those seats unless I have someone I know next to me so that I can intrude into his real estate without causing any consternation.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:32 pm

Quoting neutrino (Reply 102):
My issue is being squeezed, especially so if my immediate neighbor, or even worse neighbors, are POSes. That's why I always request an aisle seat, and failing that, a window one so that I can at least lean to one side.

I can understand that, but then the 5th middle seat is not different than the middle seats in an 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 arrangement.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:50 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 103):
I can understand that, but then the 5th middle seat is not different than the middle seats in an 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 arrangement.

I think a closer analogy is the 2-5-2 configuration seen on some 772s, at least for the getting up argument. It may not be popular or widespread, but it exists and passengers still fly it.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:32 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 101):
It seems like Airbus isn't keen on cutting a deal that will provide new frames,

Cutting a deal means selling for a loss - sticker price is already breakeven. I get the argument that maybe the A380 shoukd subsidize the EU for once but othwrwise it doesn't make any sense for Airbus to cut deals on the a380. The more likely outcome is program termination to avoid low-volume production losses while building for EK only.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 97):

The photo below illustrates how the A380 main deck can use more than the 248" cabin width without the "high chairs"

I get that; it's why I said "high chairs or armrest-pushing." This leaves you a 248" seat bottom and maybe 251 at armrest level. About equal to 777 at shoulders with window seats pinched below.
 
User avatar
mfranjic
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:54 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:30 pm

How probable are the single-class cabins´ configurations on the wide-body airliners, I would not like to speculate, but who knows that, already in the near future, they won´t find their application on some of the routes. And, how would they look like, especially on the aircraft mentioned in this thread, I have tried to visualize with some ´modifications´ I have made to the existing EK´s Airbus A380´s 2-class cabin configuration and AF´s Boeing 777-300ER´s 3-class cabin configuration.

The main deck of the EK´s 2-class A380´s cabin I haven´t changed since it comprises just the economy-class seats, 437 of them, and on the upper deck, I ´removed´ 58 business-class seats and replaced them with those of the economy-class, 152 of them. The end result was 437 Y-class seats (3-4-3) on the main deck plus 272 Y-class seats (2-4-2) on the upper deck. Altogether, 709 economy-class seats in a single-class configuration. A new set of alternative stair-galley module (ASGM) at the back of the A380, recently announced by the Airbus, would free up the room for another 14 seats, respectively 723 in total.

* Emirates´ Airbus A380 in a 2-class - C58 Y557 cabin configuration
http://imgup.io/images/2016/04/19/5a90c5f70e77667f4c48ec010348725c.png.

The Airbus A380´s main deck´s cabin´s width is 6,58 m / 21 ft 7 in / 259 in and that of the upper deck is 5,92 m / 19 ft 5 in / 233 in. Seating in 2-4-2 layout on the A380´s upper deck must be pretty comfortable due to the fact that the Airbus A330´s, 5,28 m / 17 ft 4 in / 208 in wide, cabin is already considered to be pretty pleasant in 2-4-2 layout...

* Emirates´ Airbus A380 in a single-class - Y709 cabin configuration
http://imgup.io/images/2016/04/19/a732073079a7665fb565d954284ed52c.jpg.


And, here is the Air France´s Boeing 777-300ER with the three-class, C14 W32 Y422, cabin configuration:

* Air France´ Boeing 777-3000ER in a three-class - C14 W32 Y422 cabin configuration
http://imgup.io/images/2016/06/06/b6d3b14b7ce837f43dca7476a7e88cb5.jpg.

I ´removed´ 14 business-class seats and 32 premium economy class seats and replaced them with 84 economy-class seats. The end result was 506 Y-class seats.

* Air France´ Boeing 777-3000ER in a single-class - Y506 cabin configuration
http://imgup.io/images/2016/06/06/2bf9128baba57e57e564f215fd33e8ed.jpg.


And what do I get? On one side, there are 723 seats in all Y-class . A380´s cabin configuration with the, I would say, pretty comfortable and spacious layout, and on the other, 506 seats in all Y-class . 777´s cabin configuration.

Boeing B777-300ER cabin´s width is 5,87 m / 19 ft 3 in / 231 in, so it is not so hard to imagine the cabin 0,71 m / 28 in narrower than that of the Airbus A380 main deck´s and with the same, 3-4-3, seating layout.
Also, 5,92 m / 19 ft 5 in / 233 in wide A380´s upper deck´s cabin, in 2-4-2 layout, is probably more comfortable and pleasant than the Boeing 777´s 5,87 m / 19 ft 3 in / 231 in wide cabin in 3-4-3 layout ...

For me, this was nothing but a simplified way to find out how much more passengers Airbus A380 can accommodate than the Boeing 777 in the same, all Y-class, cabin configuration. From what I have learned, by reading the different threads on this forum, 3-4-3 cabin layout of the Boeing 777 is not something particularly preferably among the passengers, and on the other side, I think that on the sitting in those A380´s cabins with the described layout no one would have some significant objections. If any at all...

I haven´t engaged with the 3-5-3 layout on the A380´s main deck cabin because it would, by my opinion, convert A380 in something it is not. I am not against that layout a priori, but not on the proposed way. If someone would ask me to find even more seats for any customer in that ´mf ´ cabin configuration, I would ask my associates to construct upper-deck´s cabin mock-up in 3-3-3 layout just to analyze how would it look like. I am pretty confident it would be still a very pleasant cabin configuration, definitely more comfortable than some of the existing cabins with the same, 3-3-3, layout of the current wide-bodies. That layout would mean 34 more seats on the upper deck (306 instead of 272), respectively 757 seats in total.

The width of the cabin itself is pretty relative term due to the fact on what level it is measured and what is the profile of the aircraft´s sidewall...

If someone would ask me why I'm not willing to offer 3-5-3 cabin layout on the A380´s main deck, I would tell him that I can´t find suitable that layout with the side seats looking that way and I would suggest that in the future Airbus should look for a new solutions of finding more space in the cabin.

See what I'm saying; Boeing 777´s fuselage is 6,20 m / 20 ft 4 in / 244 in wide. Its cabin width is 5,87 m / 19 ft 3 in / 231 in and Boeing´engineers still managed to find another 10 cm / 4 in of the width for the new Boeing 777X´s cabin - 5,97 m / 19 ft 7 in / 235 in. It means 11,5 cm / 4,5 in wide sidewall (16,5 cm / 6,5 in on the Boeing 777).

Airbus A380´s fuselage´s width is 7,14 m / 23 ft 5 in / 281 in and the main deck cabin´s width is 6,58 m / 21 ft 7 in / 259 in. It means 28 cm / 11 in wide sidewall of the aircraft!
I'm pretty sure that in the future Airbus´ engineers can make those sidewalls some 7,6 cm / 3 in thinner (20,3 cm / 8 in wide) making that way cabins of the A380 15,2 cm / 6 in wider. Then we can talk about A380´s main deck´s 3-5-3 cabin layout...


Nice regards

Mario

[Edited 2016-06-07 13:40:03]
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile" - Albert Einstein
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:50 pm

Quoting mfranjic (Reply 107):
The Airbus A380´s main deck´s cabin´s width is 6,58 m / 21 ft 7 in / 259 in and that of the upper deck is 5,92 m / 19 ft 5 in / 233 in. Seating in 2-4-2 layout on the A380´s upper deck must be pretty comfortable due to the fact that the Airbus A330´s, 5,28 m / 17 ft 4 in / 208 in wide, cabin is already considered to be pretty pleasant in 2-4-2 layout...

You're using the maximum dimensions, not the practical dimensions at seat level. For the main deck, the maximum width occurs at about seated eye level. At current seat level it's 248 inches per ACAP. For the upper deck, the maximum width occurs at floor level. Per ACAP, it's the same as the A330 at seat-bottom level.

On the UD, removing the sidewalls allows you move "reverse herringbone" J configuration further out: footrests don't need full shoulder height. This is a very good idea IMO, one that operators like QR would have used on the UD to add more seats. Unfortunately we may never see it fly given the paucity of new orders.

Quoting mfranjic (Reply 107):
I'm pretty sure that in the future Airbus´ engineers can make those sidewalls some 7,6 cm / 3 in thinner (20,3 cm / 8 in wide) making that way cabins of the A380 15,2 cm / 6 in wider.

This would be a big engineering change but seems possible given that Boeing did it. I'm not as "sure" of its feasibility as you are - the A380's sidewalls are more stressed by pressure and weight than a 777's. But they're also much thicker right now...

---------------------------------------------

Your one-class layout leaves EK's galley/lav configuration on the UD behind Door 8. You could probably squeeze another ~30 Y seats back there by playing with the galleys/lavs.

If we add 30 seats on the UD plus 14 seats on the MD (the new stair module), your revised seat count would be 753 Y seats - 49% more than your 1-class 777.

Unfortunately, that still leaves the A380 only about as efficient per seat as a 777. Every published analysis, including Amedeo's, puts the A380's trip costs at ~50% more than a 77W. http://www.amedeo.aero/a380/

Going to 11-abreast on the MD gets you a ~5% efficiency edge over the 1-class 777.

Very few airlines are going to sacrifice frequency and/or expand capacity by 50% for equal or only slightly-better unit costs.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:56 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 109):
I've been in a real cabin with the 248" wide 10 abreast Airbus seat setup, as shown in the ACAP

DId you take out a tape measure and confirm the dimensions? I've seen wall/seat gaps on many planes, not just the A380.

The ACAP provides 248" as the seat level width for both economy and first class. No OEM is going to undersell its available width.

Until/unless you can provide something better than your word, I'm sticking with the ACAP.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:52 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 90):
1) the 11-abreast product won't become available until 2018, 2) many A380 cabins are still pretty young and not due for replacement, 3) A380 cabin reconfiguration is pretty expensive so won't happen until the next heavy maintenance interval.

I think EK would have opted for 11-abreast if it was just about meeting EK seat width minimum standards. I think they have a problem with that 5th middle seat and the foot room at the windows.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 92):
The whole hub/spoke nonsense was nothing more than marketing. All those 787s are flying from and to hubs. Hubs today are bigger then ever.

I disagree Karel. I think we have seen a lot of fragmentation as a result of the 787 proliferation and it appears its only going to continue with the A350 as evidenced by CX's route expansions. I don't think the takeaway is that hubs won't be necessary...they are located in urban areas that will naturally grow from O&D regardless, but we have seen more fragmentation and more long haul flights from secondary cities then we had before. Airlines used to rely on NRT to hub traffic and now they are overflying Japan completely to secondary Chinese locations. CX used to rely on big European hubs and AA partners to service secondary European cities but will now fly them direct. Not sure anyone is realistically arguing that CX would now not need HKG because they have an A350 or KE would no longer need ICN.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:01 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 110):
The ACAP provides 248" as the seat level width for both economy and first class

No it does not. Look again. The gaps are clearly visible in the diagram you are getting your 248" from. And my statistically superior maths tells me that the first class seat width shown is not 248".

The ACAP does not specify a cabin width. Anywhere.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 110):
No OEM is going to undersell its available width.

The ACAP is not a sales document. The clue is in the name. It is for airport compatibility and maintenance planning. It is not, and never has been, intended to be used for cabin configuration, or a.net aircraft comparison purposes.

But, just for fun, let's go with your figure. Explain to us how then, as shown in the Airbus diagram Karel posted, by raising the window seats less than 2 inches, Airbus can now fit in a 3 inch wider (251") seat setup when the sidewalls clearly do not lean out at anything even remotely close to 40 degrees at any point between floor and ceiling. Even using the maximum actual sidewall angle (at floor level), raising the seats by 1.86" gives less than 1" extra width so where are the additional 2 inches magically coming from?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27217
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:31 pm

Quoting mfranjic (Reply 107):
For me, this was nothing but a simplified way to find out how much more passengers Airbus A380 can accommodate than the Boeing 777 in the same, all Y-class, cabin configuration.

You can find that by looking at the Maximum Certified Occupancy figures for both planes:

A380-800: 853
777-300ER: 550
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:18 am

Quoting speedbored (Reply 112):
Airbus can now fit in a 3 inch wider (251") seat setup



From the diagram, you can plainly see that, even with the highchairs, the sidewall slope impinges on seat cushion width. So Airbus achieves its 3" gain by a combination of (1) pushing window seats out and shrinking the window seat cushion and (2) raising the chairs. Look closely at the outer bottom corner of each window seat.

The three inch gain gives the A380 ~0.05in per seat more space than a 777 between armrests, somewhat less at seat cushion level.

In other words, things are as I have been saying all along: 11ab A380 is more cramped than 10ab 777 without cabin weirdness. It gives more width/seat by a whisker with cabin weirdness.

[Edited 2016-06-07 17:22:38]
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:43 am

Question for y'all - How necessary/beneficial is the A380's 8ft maindeck height? Presumably a NEO/NWO could add a few more inches of space by raising the floor - maybe up to 6 inches. I enjoy the spacious feel of the A380 MD, but any airline going with 11ab isn't targeting a premium Y experience anyways - it'd be going after price-sensitive pax.

A higher floor could mean thicker, lighter floor beams and perhaps even a slightly lighter primary fuselage structure - thicker floor beams would directly relieve a greater portion of fuselage pressurization stress in tension.

As part of a more substantial revision, thicker floor beams could perhaps combine with thinned sidewalls for an even wider cabin - the floor beams alleviating structural reinforcement that thinner sidewalls, if possible, would likely require. Perhaps as much as 10-12 inches could be gained in this manner.

Another idea - instead of going 3-5-3 with either the currently-proposed or above-hypothesized space, might it be better to do a 3 aisle 2-3-3-2? An extra 17" aisle plus a 1.5" armrest would take slightly less width than an 11th seat. For operators doing 4-8hr routes with the whale, the turnaround time benefits could be significant (assuming some premium seating upstairs so the UD isn't the critical path). The degradation of pax experience between current 3-4-3 and slightly narrower 2-3-3-2 would be slight - people like aisle and window seats.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:56 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 112):
From the diagram, you can plainly see that, even with the highchairs, the sidewall slope impinges on seat cushion width.

Yes. But you can also plainly see that the seat cushion is 18" wide at the top. So, working at that level, the 11 abreast arrangement requires 250" of cabin width. Even if we accept your 248" cabin width number, and the most optimistic scenario, i.e. assume that it is measured at seat cushion level (which would leave an armrest-width gap between the seat cushion and sidewall), you still need an unrealistically large (> 20 degree) sidewall angle to get the extra room.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 112):
The three inch gain gives the A380 ~0.05in per seat more space than a 777 between armrests, somewhat less at seat cushion level.

The whole point of coming up with the raised seat arrangement was so that Airbus could claim with validity that the A380 can fit an 11-abreast arrangement with 18" wide seats. It can. Will many airlines choose such a configuration? I doubt it.

Can a 777 fit the same width seats with the same width aisles and armrests? No, it can't. Even if we ignore the fact that the different sidewall shape at armrest level would make the narrower window-side armrest impractical on the 777, and incorrectly assume that we can use every single bit of the 231" cabin width, the 777 still can't quite accommodate 18" wide seats. In reality, the absolute maximum practical width is more like 17.75".

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 112):
In other words, things are as I have been saying all along: 11ab A380 is more cramped than 10ab 777 without cabin weirdness.

Raising up the window seat by less than 2" would probably go completely unnoticed by most people, and can hardly be considered "weird".

The only place where the 11 abreast A380 config. will be more cramped than the 10 abreast 777 config. is at floor level in the window seat. At the more important shoulder level, the A380 will be very significantly less cramped in the window seat than the same seat on the 777 where the sidewall encroaches considerably.

Passenger surveys have consistently shown that, even in the exact same seats, people feel more comfortable in the A380 than any other widebody aircraft. Due, most likely, to the more spacious cabin. The almost vertical sidewalls and higher bins make a very big difference to peoples perceptions.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 113):
mean thicker, lighter floor beams

Well, I'm no structural engineer but I don't see how a beam could be both thicker and lighter unless you change the material. If you meant higher and lighter then that could be possible but would require significantly thinner material which would, most likely, cause all manner of rigidity issues. Higher, practical, floor beams are, most likely, going to also be heavier.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 113):
thicker floor beams would directly relieve a greater portion of fuselage pressurization stress in tension

Lighter floor beams implies less material and I'm pretty sure that the ability to handle tension stresses is proportional to material cross section. In any case, it seems to me that the floor beams are relieving bending moment forces (due to the non-circular fuselage) more than pressurisation stresses. Given that most of the tension stresses are handled via the top and bottom parts of the beam, increasing the height might also require changes to the fuselage shape in the area of the attachment points, or additional reinforcement.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 112):
the floor beams alleviating structural reinforcement that thinner sidewalls, if possible, would likely require. Perhaps as much as 10-12 inches could be gained in this manner.

Raising the floor by 6" would gain roughly 3" at floor level, slightly less at cushion/armrest level. To gain 12 inches, you would need to reduce the width of each of the sidewalls by roughly a third from 12.5" to 8". Given that the span that the sidewall has to cope with would be reduced by only roughly 6%, I just can't see this being possible without adding lots of material, and weight.

Just can't see it being done - any significant alterations to the floor beams, attachment points, ,materials, and/or sidewalls, will have impacts on so many areas of the structure that the re-certification effort would be far too great.

If Airbus do ever decide to raise the floor, I'm pretty sure that they will do it via a floating floor structure added on top of the existing floor. Maybe only under the seats outboard of the aisles. Even a relatively simply change such as this would require significant changes to, and recertification of, the seat attachment points.

With hindsight, the A380 fuselage might have been done differently, but it is what it is and I can't see Airbus making any significant changes to it, other than perhaps a stretch. Anything else would just be too expensive.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:56 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 109):
I disagree Karel. I think we have seen a lot of fragmentation as a result of the 787 proliferation and it appears its only going to continue with the A350 as evidenced by CX's route expansions.

Boeing for a long time promoted point-to-point with the 787, and that's not happening. Instead, all those 787s and A350s are flying from hubs to other hubs or spokes. There's no such thing as point-to-point, we should bury that marketing nonsense once and for all.

Cathay Pacific is located at HKG, a hub.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:16 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):
Boeing for a long time promoted point-to-point with the 787, and that's not happening.

I think Boeing's central thesis is similar to what was stated in this Forbes article from 2006:

Quote:

Boeing doesn’t take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world’s airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.

Ref: http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/23/uns...advertising-cx_meb_0524boeing.html

And there are statements from the 90s as Airbus was considering A3XX / A380 wherein similar things were said to support emphasizing the 777 over doing a VLA.

Regardless of how you want to label the thesis (the point-to-point thesis, the hub-bypass thesis, the anti-hub thesis, whatever), if it led Boeing to emphasize the 777 and then 787 over huge investments in VLAs then it's been proven to be the correct thesis. Clearly Airbus agrees since they are favoring the A350 and A330neo over an A380neo.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:58 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):
Boeing for a long time promoted point-to-point with the 787, and that's not happening. Instead, all those 787s and A350s are flying from hubs to other hubs or spokes. There's no such thing as point-to-point, we should bury that marketing nonsense once and for all.

Isn't the main of point to point travel to skip the hubs and continuing on direct to your destination? 787s and A350s are doing just that. This list is over 16 months old.


Air India: Delhi – Birmingham
Air India: Delhi – Melbourne – Sydney – Delhi
Air India: Delhi – Milan Malpensa – Rome – Delhi
Air India: Delhi – Moscow Domodedovo
Air India: Delhi – Rome – Milan Malpensa – Delhi
Air India: Delhi – Sydney – Melbourne – Delhi
ANA: Tokyo Narita – San Jose (CA)
British Airways: London Heathrow – Austin
British Airways: London Heathrow – Chengu
China Southern: Guangzhou – Wuhan – San Francisco
Ethiopian: Addis Ababa – Dublin – Los Angeles
Ethiopian: Addis Ababa – Hong Kong – Tokyo Narita
Hainan Airlines: Beijing – Boston
Japan Airlines: Tokyo Narita – Boston
Japan Airlines: Tokyo Narita – Helsinki
Japan Airlines: Tokyo Narita – San Diego
LOT Polish: Warsaw – Bangkok/Cancun/Colombo/Durban/Ho Chi Minh City/Krabi/Santa Clara/Varadero/Zanzibar
Norwegian: Bergen – New York JFK
Norwegian: Copenhagen – Bangkok
Norwegian: Copenhagen – Fort Lauderdale
Norwegian: Copenhagen – Los Angeles
Norwegian: Copenhagen – New York JFK
Norwegian: Oslo – Bangkok
Norwegian: Oslo – Fort Lauderdale
Norwegian: Oslo – Los Angeles
Norwegian: Oslo – New York JFK
Norwegian: Oslo – Oakland
Norwegian: Stockholm – Bangkok
Norwegian: Stockholm – Fort Lauderdale
Norwegian: Stockholm – Los Angeles
Norwegian: Stockholm – New York JFK
Norwegian: Stockholm – Oakland
United Airlines: Denver – Tokyo Narita
United Airlines: San Francisco – Chengdu
United Airlines: Los Angeles – Melbourne
Air Canada: Toronto – Delhi
Air Canada: Toronto – Dubai
ANA: Tokyo Narita – Kuala Lampur
Japan Airlines: Osaka Kansai – Los Angeles
Kenya Airways: Nairobi – Hanoi – Guangzhou
Norwegian: Copenhagen – Orlando
Norwegian: London Gatwick – Orlando
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:42 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 115):

It is hardly nonsense, as the post above shows. Point to point does not mean spoke to spoke as it's often assumed. It is hub to spoke vs hub to hub to spoke.
E.g Tokyo to SAN or Tokyo to BOS are perfect examples. Prior to fragmentation, it would have required transit via LAX/SFO and JFK/EWR respectively.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:10 am

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
you still need an unrealistically large (> 20 degree) sidewall angle to get the extra room.

Look at the diagram again: the window seats are 3" higher. Why?

-The middle bank is 1.13" lower, the out seats 1.86" higher
-Did Airbus lower the middle bank for some reason? Maybe just to further humiliate Y pax? No, the middle bank is the same level, the outer bank has just been raised 1.13"
-add it up and and window seats are 3" higher than normal
-The outer armrests are pushed out, contributing 1" of the 3"
-This implies a slope of 3 for raising the window seats 3" - you gain 1" on each side. That seems entirely reasonable.

The "angle of seat ascent," btw is given by Tan-1 of 1/3: 18.43 degrees from the vertical. That seems reasonable to me.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
Can a 777 fit the same width seats with the same width aisles and armrests?

-10 18" seat cushions, 13 1.5" armrests, and 2 17" aisles is 233.5": The 777 is 2.5" short.
-The A380 without seat-raising is 3" short.

So again it's as I said - 10ab 777 is slightly more spacious than 11ab A380 without seat-raising.
With seat-raising A380 has a bit more space but comfort is dubious. On the A380 you have a 27% chance of cramped legroom or a "prisoner seat," balanced by a couple centimeters more personal space versus the 777.
It isn't clear to me which is the better deal; we both don't expect it to be ordered.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
Well, I'm no structural engineer but

I must reflexively disagree with Matt so here goes...  
Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
I don't see how a beam could be both thicker and lighter

Same general reason a thicker wing is lighter, or that an I-beam is lighter than a simple rod of equal strength. See, for example:

Quote:
Increasing the depth of the beam increases the bending strength by the depth cubed, so we can gain a lot of stiffness this way.

https://www.quora.com/Structural-Engineering-Why-is-an-I-beam-shaped-the-way-it-is

The A380's current floor beam thickness is probably a compromise between minimizing beam weight and minimizing the knock-on effects of thicker floor beams (if 8ft cabin height was mandated, then thicker/lighter floor beams would have required a bigger, heavier fuselage).

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
In any case, it seems to me that the floor beams are relieving bending moment forces (due to the non-circular fuselage) more than pressurisation stresses.

Not sure what you mean here. To the extent that there's a "bending moment" due to the non-circular fuselage, it's the tendency of the fuselage to want to form itself into a circle under pressure. Because the A380 is roughly a vertically-longer ellipse, that means the floor beams are in tension horizontally/longitudinally. Metals are much more efficient at carrying longitudinal tension than at carrying perpendicularly-oriented bending moments - thus suspension bridges. Relying on the floor beams to take in tension some of the pressurization stress is efficient solution.

But again, not sure what you mean here.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
To gain 12 inches, you would need to reduce the width of each of the sidewalls by roughly a third

...which is exactly what Boeing achieved on the 777X.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
Just can't see it being done - any significant alterations to the floor beams, attachment points, ,materials, and/or sidewalls, will have impacts on so many areas of the structure that the re-certification effort would be far too great.

Same would go for the 777X. If Boeing can do it, can't see why Airbus can't.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
With hindsight, the A380 fuselage might have been done differently, but it is what it is

Lots should have been done differently with this airplane. But the fuselage is still the best fuselage flying from wetted area/pax viewpoint - probably weight too but that's harder to confirm with public information.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
Anything else would just be too expensive.

Oh ye of little faith.
Here's the weird part where we flip roles and I'm the bigger A380/VLA advocate than you.

It's clear, apropos of the thread title, that the A380 is at least stagnating - I would say dying. Production holes in 2018 means we better see new orders or else production probably goes back into the red.

It's also clear that the NEO option has no non-EK takers for now and that Airbus has no commitment to it other than a nebulous expectation of new engines over the next 30-40 years.

To me this gives the following options:
1. Keep producing low-volume numbers from 2018, probably at a loss, hoping for a NEO some day
2. Kill the program (including some deal with EK to advance deliveries and/or provide substitute aircraft plus penalty payments that could be lower than low-volume production losses)
3. Commit to a more extensive upgrade with a new wing in addition to new engines
4. Launch a clean sheet VLA successor

Airbus seems to be on (1) for now but perhaps only because they think they're going to sell enough A380's to make this a viable option for a rational corporation. They'd hate to keep losing money on this program but (2) would be pretty odious as well.

Options (3) and (4) are surely being studied internally but we won't hear of such studies until/unless the pain of options 1/2 becomes unbearable.

I've written much in favor of (3) but view (4) increasingly favorably. As each year passes the case for a big new VLA program harvesting new tech gets better.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:35 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
Look at the diagram again: the window seats are 3" higher. Why?

No, they are not. They are 1.86" higher. You don't even need to work it out from the diagram, it says so, in plain English.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
Did Airbus lower the middle bank for some reason?

Yes. Again, it says so in plain English.

And the reason is so that they can make the armrest arrangement between the raised window seat and the neighbouring seat work satisfactorily.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
No, the middle bank is the same level, the outer bank has just been raised 1.13"

Wrong. I fail to see how anyone can be reading "1.13" lower" as "the same level".

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
add it up and and window seats are 3" higher than normal

No. They are 1.86" higher, as it explicitly says on the diagram.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
The "angle of seat ascent," btw is given by Tan-1 of 1/3:

I'm fully aware of the maths, thanks. Bit odd being lectured on maths by someone who thinks that 57+57+57+38+38 = 248 though.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
18.43 degrees from the vertical. That seems reasonable to me.

Well it would because it suits your argument. But it's wrong. Even at the steepest point in the cabin (at floor level) , the angle is no more than 15 degrees. The maths is rather complicated to work it out but you can check my assertion in a far easier way by measuring it on any of the freely available cabin construction images out there showing the structure end-on.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
The A380 without seat-raising is 3" short.

No, it is not.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
On the A380 you have a 27% chance of cramped legroom

Maths clearly is not your strong point. 2 of the 11 seats would have cramped legroom. That's 18%. And on the 777 you'd have a 20% chance of being cramped in the more important shoulder space. I'm pretty sure which configuration would be more popular with passengers.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:16 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
See, for example:

Ah, so when you say thickness, you do actually mean "height" or "depth". It's very hard to understand when you use the wrong terminology.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
The A380's current floor beam thickness is probably a compromise between minimizing beam weight and minimizing the knock-on effects of thicker floor beams (if 8ft cabin height was mandated, then thicker/lighter floor beams would have required a bigger, heavier fuselage).

Again, you are hung up on academic views of things, and ignoring the fact that the beams have to be manufactured out of real materials. By making the beam higher/deeper, if you maintain exactly the same weight, the material must get thinner. Thinner material being asked to cope with an increasing span is going to find it harder and harder to resist buckling. This will get even worse if, as you suggest, the material is even further thinned down to make the larger beam lighter.

Even most academic documents contain all sorts of provisos that ought to make this clear, for example:
http://tinyurl.com/grnls79
btw, you'll find thickness marked "t" on the diagrams.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
But again, not sure what you mean here.

OK, I'll approach it from a different, simpler, direction. The pressure stresses that the fuselage skin have to cope with are proportional to its area. No amount of internal structure will change that.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
which is exactly what Boeing achieved on the 777X.

Which is a circular fuselage where a far greater proportion of the stresses are tension. The main cabin sidewalls on the A380 have a lot more work to do than on the 777, which is why the existing sidewall structure is more than 50% thicker on the A380 than the current 777. It remains to be seen how much weight Boeing will need to add to maintain structural integrity.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
It's clear, apropos of the thread title, that the A380 is at least stagnating - I would say dying. Production holes in 2018 means we better see new orders or else production probably goes back into the red.

Clear to some. You will have already seen many people in this thread disagree with that view.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
I'm the bigger A380/VLA advocate than you.

hahahaha.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:19 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
To me this gives the following options:
1. Keep producing low-volume numbers from 2018, probably at a loss, hoping for a NEO some day
2. Kill the program (including some deal with EK to advance deliveries and/or provide substitute aircraft plus penalty payments that could be lower than low-volume production losses)
3. Commit to a more extensive upgrade with a new wing in addition to new engines
4. Launch a clean sheet VLA successor

Airbus seems to be on (1) for now but perhaps only because they think they're going to sell enough A380's to make this a viable option for a rational corporation. They'd hate to keep losing money on this program but (2) would be pretty odious as well.

What makes you believe they can't make money on production levels as low as 20 jets per month?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:10 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122):
What makes you believe they can't make money on production levels as low as 20 jets per month?

Airbus guidance is they're break-even at 20. Accounting, like any social convention, is subject to manipulation but ok let's say they break even, per guidance, at 20 in 2017.

My reply wasn't about 2017 and 20; it was about 2018 and onwards at something significantly less than 20. 14? 12? How many can EK take with declining load factors?

Let's focus on rate [significantly fewer than 20]. Airbus has given no guidance on such rates. We know break-even at 20 was a struggle and that Airbus shifted overhead to achieve it. What makes you think they CAN achieve break-even at, say, 14?

Upthread someone argued something like, "if the 748 if is break-even at 12 then the A380 can be too." Two general problems with that rationale:

1. Is the 748 really break-even at 12? I doubt it. Boeing probably should have killed that program a while ago.

2. Even were the 748 break-even, the argument's logical structure is "if company A can profitably produce product X at rate 12, then company B can profitably produce product Y at rate 12." That's utterly simplistic nonsense. What are the cost structures of A and B? At what prices do X and Y sell? How much does it cost to produce X and Y?

The A380 is a far more modern plane than the 748, using more modern primary materials and incorporating more modern systems. That alone is a sufficient reason to reject the simplistic analogy.

Given the struggle to break even at rate 20, what makes you think a significantly lower rate would allow break even?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4149
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:34 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
Airbus guidance is they're break-even at 20.

You may be suprised, I even have my doubts about the break-even at 20 airframes per year.

Airbus started saying it needs 30 units per year to break-even production-wise. Some months later they said "well, 27 will be OK as well", which sounds reasonable (+/-10%). But now only 20? I only trust the excel-spreadsheets I tortured myself, to get the intended result...  

PS.: sorry for not providing the links / sources for the evolution from 30 to 27 to 20 but surely you remember it
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:36 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
Upthread someone argued something like, "if the 748 if is break-even at 12 then the A380 can be too." Two general problems with that rationale:

1. Is the 748 really break-even at 12? I doubt it. Boeing probably should have killed that program a while ago.

2. Even were the 748 break-even, the argument's logical structure is "if company A can profitably produce product X at rate 12, then company B can profitably produce product Y at rate 12." That's utterly simplistic nonsense. What are the cost structures of A and B? At what prices do X and Y sell? How much does it cost to produce X and Y?

The A380 is a far more modern plane than the 748, using more modern primary materials and incorporating more modern systems. That alone is a sufficient reason to reject the simplistic analogy.

Given the struggle to break even at rate 20, what makes you think a significantly lower rate would allow break even?

One thing we know is Boeing has already had suppliers exit the 748 program because they could not make money at the low production rate. Heck, even maintaining an idle factory costs lots in taxes, etc. Boeing had to act fast to replace that supplier. So I'm not sure if that says Boeing is making enough money to be able to afford the costs of doing that (said to be at least $80M) or if the penalties of canceling the remaining orders was too much to bear, or if they really believe in the great freight market revival of 2018 er 2019 er 2020...

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...-in-georgia-as-supplier-pulls-out/ is the reference. Boeing spent $80M to move the manufacturing of fuse panels in-house and is bidding out the manufacture of the tail, floor beams and flight surfaces. All those re-bids are going to cost Boeing a lot of money too. Clearly it's a low-rate program with not much upside so I doubt vendors are that interested in joining it.

I can imagine Airbus must be dealing with similar supplier issues. There has to be a point at which suppliers walk away from the program. My article above says:

Quote:

In January, after Boeing cut the 747-8 rate for the third time in less than two years — production is now at 16 jets per year, down from 24 jets per year in 2013 — the loss of revenue prompted Triumph to declare a forward loss of $152 million.

“As close to the profitability edges as we were, any reduction in rate put us into a loss position on the contract and require a charge to be taken,” then-Chief Executive Jeff Frisby explained on an earnings call with Wall Street analysts.

Suppliers have their own bottom lines to watch and their own boards to report to.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:57 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
Accounting, like any social convention, is subject to manipulation

Sure. But nobody on this forum can provide evidence whether production is really break-even at 20 frames per year. Hence I'd prefer to believe the words of Fabrice Brégier.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
Upthread someone argued something like, "if the 748 if is break-even at 12 then the A380 can be too." Two general problems with that rationale:

I believe Boeing uses deferred costs on the 748 program. Boeing aircraft production is extremely efficient and I'm convinced 747 production today is break-even, but Boeing has not enough aircraft in backlog to spread the deferred costs on. Another charge may be expected. On top of that Boeing will have to pump more money into the program because suppliers are walking away.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
Given the struggle to break even at rate 20, what makes you think a significantly lower rate would allow break even?

Because more cost-cuts are underway. Per Tom Williams early this month:

Quote:
Airbus has been scrambling to lower production expenses of the A380 to stop losing money on each delivery as its costs to build the double-decker for years outpaced what customers were paying. Airbus Chief Operating Officer Tom Williams said the program had done a "dramatic job reducing the break-even point."

Then Fabrice Brégier added more cost cuts efforts are underway.

So if they are break-even at 20 jets, and more efforts are underway to further cut production costs, the break-even point should drop below 20 jets. Whether the next break-even point will be 12, 16 or 18 jets per month remains to be seen.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:11 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 120):
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
Did Airbus lower the middle bank for some reason?

Yes. Again, it says so in plain English.

Ok. You believe that Airbus for some inexplicable reason reduced the height of the middle seats, I'll keep my position. We've probably said enough on this issue right?

Quoting speedbored (Reply 120):

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 119):
On the A380 you have a 27% chance of cramped legroom

Maths clearly is not your strong point. 2 of the 11 seats would have cramped legroom.

It's funny how you cut out the clause "or a prisoner seat," which explains the maths.

Re these other issues: we've made our cases, I'll rest on the briefs.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 121):
You will have already seen many people in this thread disagree with that view.

Indeed a few!
And yet this forum has massively boosted my confidence in my judgment about stuff that flies. I've faced off against brilliant professionals like yourself and guess what?

On the biggest disagreements - A380NEO business case, A380CEO sales trajectory - this amateur has been right, the brilliant professional has been wrong. It would be like losing a court case to speedbored the day after he opened his first legal text.

So bring on the dissent, I'm undefeated against the best and brightest!

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 124):

You may be suprised, I even have my doubts about the break-even at 20 airframes per year.

I'm not surprised at all, thus my caveat about accounting being subject to manipulation. If matters of prestige, political goodwill, and corporate ego weren't involved, this program would be explicitly winding down by now, if not cancelled years ago.

...unless a rewing is still a possibilty. One can hope [precisely one - me].

Quoting Revelation (Reply 125):
or if they really believe in the great freight market revival of 2018 er 2019 er 2020..

They're STILL invoking this AFAIK. It seems dishonest until you remember they bet $5bn on it in the first place - maybe it's really just bad judgment. Long-held biases die hard; a big bonus isn't a cure for the odd, contradictory proclivities of intellectual apes.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:20 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
My reply wasn't about 2017 and 20; it was about 2018 and onwards at something significantly less than 20. 14? 12?

But why do we even need to look at a rate lower than 20?

EK have taken an average of just over 13 a year for the last 3 years and, given recent comments from TC, I see no reason why that will not continue. So, based on the current EK order backlog, that's 13 per year for ~4.5 years.

Then, even if we exclude the orders considered by some to be 'flaky', and add in the 12 from IR that are yet to be firmed, there are more than sufficient other orders to make up the 7 per year difference for the next 4.5 years.

So, even allowing for the fact that production will be significantly above 20 for at least the next 12 months, Airbus ought to be able to sustain production at at least rate 20 until at least mid-2020, even in the unlikely event that they cannot sell as much as a single additional frame over the next few years.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
How many can EK take with declining load factors?

As many as he has on order. TC has stated many many times that the A380 is one of his major selling points. Load factors have fallen slightly across the board but are still good, and slightly better on his A380s. Why would he even consider swapping his A380s for smaller aircraft, lose passengers and make considerably lower profits?

Why should TC not be believed when he says he wants even more A380s if he can find the space for them, despite also admitting to slightly lower load factors? History proves that, unlike many other airline CEOs, he really does know what he's doing.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:25 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 128):
But why do we even need to look at a rate lower than 20

Maybe because Airbus itself says there are holes in the production plan for 2018?

I could quibble with everything else in the above reply, but we'll leave it at Airbus' word.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:29 pm

Lots of discussion on 10 vs 11 abreast.And of course there has been the recent Airbus announcements on further capacity increases,such as removal of side bins and re sculpturing of rear stairs upstairs etc.On top of that Airbus still discuss the 'eventual' NEO as having the 'small stretch' (50 odd extra pax).
The problem with all of this is who is actually asking for these capacity increases? As best I know not even Emirates are these days.
So why the stretch? Well no doubt the plane would be far more efficient (in theory) as probably no other structural changes would be necessary, but its larger than anything anybody is asking for,as far as I know.So why?

Is it that a NEO of the existing aircraft would require an engine of a Trent TEN level of thrust and the stretch would require an engine size of the smaller XWB engine size.I guess they don't want to hand Boeing a ready made engine upgrade to the 787! (I wouldn't) much rather have something better for their A350 family.Simply conjecture though.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4149
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:36 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 130):
The problem with all of this is who is actually asking for these capacity increases? As best I know not even Emirates are these days.

It's correct. TC himself said in one of these interviews, that they are "interested" in a NEO but not in additional seat capacity.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:38 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 130):
The problem with all of this is who is actually asking for these capacity increases? As best I know not even Emirates are these days.

Literally nobody. Only EK wants the NEO and, as you note, EK doesn't see a capacity bump being necessary.

Airbus is trying to improve the whale's unit costs with the stretch NEO, but is harming future trip costs in the process. Not a winning proposition from CEO's current capacity/CASM package. Of course the current platform can't offer a package that appeals to any non-EK airlines so it didn't hurt to try the CASM route.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:44 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 127):
Ok. You believe that Airbus for some inexplicable reason reduced the height of the middle seats

It could not be any clearer in the diagram or do you think a diagram produced by Airbus (who really ought to know what they are proposing) is wrong?

I don't "believe", I know they did. I've attended an Airbus presentation to an airline that included it, which is how I am able to provide the far from inexplicable reason. But I fully expect you not to believe me.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 127):
On the biggest disagreements - A380NEO business case, A380CEO sales trajectory - this amateur has been right

Yes, of course you have.

You claimed Airbus would not make the business case for a NEO. Well the comments from Airbus have recently changed from "only if we can make the business case" to "we will do a NEO, just not yet".

You claimed there would be no more A380 orders. ANA, IR? I'm certain it'll be very interesting to review your forecasted "CEO sales trajectory" again at the end of this year.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:47 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 133):
ANA, IR?

And more sales are expected. As reported in reply #16:

Quote:
Airbus Group SE expects to conclude agreements for further A380 superjumbo sales this year as it refines the double-decker planes’ layout to improve economy.

The deals could come from a mix of new customers and existing ones, Chris Buckley, the plane maker’s executive vice president, Europe, Asia and Pacific, said in an interview on the sidelines of the International Air Transport Association’s annual meeting.

He wouldn’t identify the potential buyers.

This time, words did not came from John Leahy.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:06 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 133):
Well the comments from Airbus have recently changed from "only if we can make the business case" to "we will do a NEO, just not yet".

Oh so Airbus doesn't need to make a business case for a 2025 NEO if it launches? It can just reference these "some day" statements to the BoD and say, "come on, we promised!"? You know better than that, you're getting desperate. Any product launch requires a business case and BoD approval.

You know darn well that our arguments over the past few years have been about a ~2020 NEO with Advance engines. You argued for it; I argued against. It's not gonna happen. At least be honest.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 133):

ANA, IR?

ANA was a bribe for Skymark sponsorship; IR isn't an order yet and may never be.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 133):
I'm certain it'll be very interesting to review your forecasted "CEO sales trajectory" again at the end of this year

Show some courage - are you making a sales prediction?

[Edited 2016-06-09 06:41:24]
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:18 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 133):
But I fully expect you not to believe me.

Ding ding ding! Anybody who believes the NEO has somehow gone from "maybe" to "certain" over the last couple years would probably swallow whatever Kool-Aid Airbus served them.

Did you ask Airbus why the MD's middle bank pax got not only one more travel buddy, but shorter seats as well? Maybe Airbus really hates people who ride in Y? Did you consider that "lower" on a diagram can mean "relatively lower?"

No, I bet you read the slide as critically as you read everything else about the A380.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:42 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 135):
ANA was a bribe for Skymark sponsorship

Lets be a bit more fair; if it was really a bribe it will have been well known and report by now, the Japanese don't operate like that and the Skymark frames will not be taken up by ANA regardless.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 134):

Yes we are only 6 months in to this year. There are Farnborough and another half year. There is no real precedent for A380 sales (or 748s or even 777Xs) and all widebody sales have slowed. Not time to count chickens before they hatch. Should be able to follow a sales forecast as per Karel's post and any investment banking analyst would do the same as after all that is the data we need to go by.
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4980
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 135):
Oh so Airbus doesn't need to make a business case for a 2025 NEO if it launches?

Who says they haven't made the business case for it internally? They aren't required to release that business case to you or I.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 136):
Ding ding ding! Anybody who believes the NEO has somehow gone from "maybe" to "certain" over the last couple years would probably swallow whatever Kool-Aid Airbus served them.

It can go from "maybe" to "certain" to "nope" to "starting it next week" to "maybe" to "perhaps not after all" to "heres the first example" for all we care.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 136):
Maybe Airbus really hates people who ride in Y?

Airbus doesn't answer to the people who ride in Y, they answer to the people who buy their product - the airlines. The airlines have said that that is acceptable, so thats the end of that - if you have an issue, take it up with the airlines.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 135):
ANA was a bribe for Skymark sponsorship;

Libel doesn't suit, this probably isn't the best place to throw those sort of remarks around.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:14 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 135):
Oh so Airbus doesn't need to make a business case for a 2025 NEO if it launches?

That's not what I said. The change of tone seems to suggest that they might already have done so.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 135):
Show some courage - are you making a sales prediction?

OK, I'll bite. Airbus will sell at least 20 frames this year.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 135):
IR isn't an order yet and may never be.

The IR order is as firm as it can be until they work out (a) how to finance them without any risk of the US being able to impose fines because they claim that their sanctions have been broken and (b) how to reliably get money out of Iran to make the finance and other payments. These issues will be resolved, and the order will be firmed - Iran really needs it to happen and most of the world, especially the EU, is very keen to build bridges now.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 136):
Did you consider that "lower" on a diagram can mean "relatively lower?"

Not in this case. Because I already knew the true answer before I even saw that diagram.

Did you even consider, when formulating that excuse, how silly it would make you look to try to use that as a reason to make me look wrong?

Given that, in the diagram, all of the seats except the window seats are clearly on the same level (put a ruler across it if you don't believe me), then the diagram is showing the window seats as both relatively 1.13" lower and relatively 1.86" higher. Only possible in Matts bizarre world.

If the measurements were relative they would only have needed a single +3", which is what the relative measurement is.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:21 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 138):
Who says they haven't made the business case for it internally? They aren't required to release that business case to you or I.

  
While they still need to keep selling CEOs to keep the line at a viable rate, it would be foolish of them to do so.

The fact that John Leahy jumped in so quickly to qualify the "we will do the NEO" remark is certainly very suggestive that this might be the case.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:21 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 139):
Airbus will sell at least 20 frames this year

I respect the commitment. Is that including, or in addition to, the 12 IR orders?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4149
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:25 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 139):
OK, I'll bite. Airbus will sell at least 20 frames this year.

Wow, that's in deed courageous. I guess you mean new oders only, without considering any potential cancellations, correct?
(just avoiding confusion at the end of this year  

Best regards
N14AZ
(notorious pessimst)
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:32 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 143):
Wow, that's in deed courageous. I guess you mean new oders only, without considering any potential cancellations, correct?

Now your being too optimistic. I can see 20 gross orders happening, but there will be cancellations too. Pretty sure that VS order will be removed as soon as they announce the A350 order. The Air Austral order has also been removed, but nobody noticed it because it was overshadowed by the ANA and EK orders earlier this year.

We already have 12 units from IR, and Airbus expects one or two additional orders from current operators (following-up orders).

[Edited 2016-06-09 07:34:23]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:34 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 139):
The change of tone seems to suggest that they might already havè [made the business case].

Now you're really stretching. Change of tone? They've continually pushed back EIS. Already made the case? No business case is "closed" ~5 years ahead of the relevant decision date.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 139):

If the measurements were relative they would only have needed a single +3", which is what the relative measurement is

Relative can be relative to any shared fixed reference. The window seats are ~15ft above the landing gear, the aisle seats slightly less. It's kinda sad that yoy bold "relative" but use it in a totally naive sense.

We agree that the window seats are 3" higher than the middle bank seats, right?

Our only disagreement, then, would be whether Airbus for some reason lowered the middle bank seats relative to current seat height. Got an explanation for why they'd do that?

So we're really disagreeing about window seat height relative to the floor or some other fixed reference that we agree hasn't changed.

This is a relatively easy question - why on earth would Airbus lower the middle bank seats?

[Edited 2016-06-09 07:36:03]
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:07 pm

In truth a 200 order from Emirates (and lots of maybe's from existing operators),which is what they have consistently said they would buy IS a business case (the bulk of the costs fall onto RR).It just isn't the business case that Airbus want. So tough. But the longer they leave it the closer the replacement market gets for all the other operators so I can see the reason for delay (and the fact that the 'Advance' engine is not nearly ready or proven).
Also if they gave a firm date right now no doubt some potential buyers may wriggle off the hook and wait. If (when) the day comes that they can clearly see that there are no more new orders for the CEO then I guess we will hear then. Perhaps after 2018 when the 748 has ceased production?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:43 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 128):
But why do we even need to look at a rate lower than 20?

EK have taken an average of just over 13 a year for the last 3 years and, given recent comments from TC, I see no reason why that will not continue. So, based on the current EK order backlog, that's 13 per year for ~4.5 years.

Then, even if we exclude the orders considered by some to be 'flaky', and add in the 12 from IR that are yet to be firmed, there are more than sufficient other orders to make up the 7 per year difference for the next 4.5 years.

The Forbes/Aboulafia article above gives the order book as 65 more EK frames and 18 non-flaky non-EK frames which isn't very different than your projection. He suggests 14 EK plus 6 "others" per year for the next few years.

Quoting parapente (Reply 130):
Is it that a NEO of the existing aircraft would require an engine of a Trent TEN level of thrust and the stretch would require an engine size of the smaller XWB engine size.I guess they don't want to hand Boeing a ready made engine upgrade to the 787! (I wouldn't) much rather have something better for their A350 family.Simply conjecture though.

The A388 in its present form is sub-optimal and there's no interest in a stretch. It'll need something as revolutionary as Advance to make it become interesting in the post-2020 markets. But if you are RR would you invest in an all-new engine just for a niche product? Hard to see that in the current era.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 139):
These issues will be resolved, and the order will be firmed - Iran really needs it to happen and most of the world, especially the EU, is very keen to build bridges now.

Let's hope that bridge works out a lot better than those bridges the EU built to Russia. One lurch to the right in Iran, the EU and/or the US and that bridge is going to be on shaky ground.

Quoting moo (Reply 148):
Except for the main customer of the type saying "we want we want we want we want we want". Get that customer to pay enough, and there's your business case. Any other "restrictions" that have been mentioned before can easily and rapidly fall away.

Yet he's been saying that for several years now. We all thought it'd come together in 2015. Since then we've heard Enders insist he won't build a NEO just for EK, we've seen RR's new CEO make some unsettling comments about the state of his business, we've seen Airbus publicly mumble about A350 stretches while Clark mumbles about NEO talks lapsing, and we've seen EK's growth rate and load factors "stagnate" whilst they still have hundreds of A380s, 77Ws and 779s on order with an upcoming A350/787 order too. Hurray for your optimism, but to me it doesn't add up to a A380NEO any time soon.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:50 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 153):
The Forbes/Aboulafia article above gives the order book as 65 more EK frames and 18 non-flaky non-EK frames which isn't very different than your projection. He suggests 14 EK plus 6 "others" per year for the next few years.

I was working on 63 and 20 but only because I couldn't be bothered to go and work out exact numbers. Either way, the sum is the same and amounts to about 4 years of continued production at rate 20.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 153):
Let's hope that bridge works out a lot better than those bridges the EU built to Russia. One lurch to the right in Iran, the EU and/or the US and that bridge is going to be on shaky ground.

True but the EU has many shaky bridges. Some of them inside the EU - it's possible that one might collapse on the 23rd of this month  
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:04 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 146):
One of the bonuses is weight - lower seats would weigh less (shorter and could be marginally thinner due to reduced moment arm), and require shorter IFE wiring. Small saving per seat but lots of seats.

Here's another possible reason for lowering the middle seats while raising the window seats.

All seats must stay attached to the floor under a 16g crash loading and the floor can't fail. This condition may design the overall floor structure.

By lowering the five middle seats (one more than the current four), the reduction in torsional bending moment transmitted to the floor beams may compensate for the increased torsional bending moment transmitted to the floor beams created by raising the outboard seats.

Not totally sure this is the reason for lowering the center seats but it is a possibility.

That being said, I don't think that having 11ab main deck passengers will decide the A380 fate in the market place.

[Edited 2016-06-09 09:10:30]

[Edited 2016-06-09 09:13:15]
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:56 pm

reply 146
The A388 in its present form is sub-optimal and there's no interest in a stretch. It'll need something as revolutionary as Advance to make it become interesting in the post-2020 markets. But if you are RR would you invest in an all-new engine just for a niche product? Hard to see that in the current era.

100% right.It's either got to be a 787 NEO engine or an A350 NEO upgrade engine to make it worth while.I am sure RR would prefer the former as it is older and they can grab competition engines- they already have 100% of the XWB market
Just don't think it would sit that well with Airbus.

Reply 147.
I was working on 63 and 20 but only because I couldn't be bothered to go and work out exact numbers. Either way, the sum is the same and amounts to about 4 years of continued production at rate 20.

Yup it all points towards 2020/1.Unless they can persuade Emirates to continue taking the CEO's after that.I noted that Emirates belatedly asked for B Winglets if they couldn't have new engines! Just something!

Airbus needs to be careful I can't help thinking that Boeing could pull a 777-10 out of the hat if needs be.Not easy,but perhaps possible.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27217
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation

Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:04 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 123):
Airbus guidance is they're break-even at 20. Accounting, like any social convention, is subject to manipulation but ok let's say they break even, per guidance, at 20 in 2017.

My reply wasn't about 2017 and 20; it was about 2018 and onwards at something significantly less than 20. 14? 12?

If they're all EK frames, that really streamlines production and the suppliers so it might very well be possible to be revenue-positive on that few frames.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos