Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11162
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:28 am

Please continue discussion here

Link to last thread below

IATA: A380 Stagnation (by Revelation Jun 3 2016 in Civil Aviation)
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:04 am

Quoting MrHMSH from the previous thread:

Quote:
You know full well that the A350/787 order is to replace very old (by EK standards) aircraft in an entirely different sector. Of course they're going to order the new models there.

Not at all true. The A330's and A340's will be gone this year or next IIRC. The 773/W will soon be EK's smallest plane. TC recently said that the "regional" widebodies are for 2023-25 delivery, when EK will be at DWC. It's hard to consider a 2025 delivery a replacement for a plane that left a decade earlier.

This order already reflects EK's intent to use smaller planes to serve destinations it currently can't, once DWC's capacity allows it to have a different kind of calculus than what DXB currently mandates (maximize revenue per slot, even at the expense of leaving destinations on the table).

SE Asia has lots of mid-size cities like Medan, Surabaya, Chiang Mai, Krabi, Batam, Kota Kinablu, Makassar, Davao, Balikpapan, etc. that could be served by EK next decade, but not with A380's or even 779's. That's saying nothing of Africa, secondary/tertiary Chinese cities, or further smaller European points like Basel. QR is already planning to serve Chiang Mai and Krabi, EK is left out of that goal by its slot constraints so far.

The ME3 already dominate Europe to big points in SE Asia like BKK - there's simply not much traffic left to steal there. TC knows that future growth is going to require serving smaller points, thus the 787/A350 order. It is very possible that EK's 2020's growth relies primarily on one-stop connections between these points and places like LHR and MUC. If that's so, then the A380 will play a lesser role at DWC, proportionally, than it will at DXB.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:03 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
Not at all true. The A330's and A340's will be gone this year or next IIRC.
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
It's hard to consider a 2025 delivery a replacement for a plane that left a decade earlier.

You can replace something in the long term, but I'll take your word for it.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
This order already reflects EK's intent to use smaller planes to serve destinations it currently can't, once DWC's capacity allows it to have a different kind of calculus than what DXB currently mandates (maximize revenue per slot, even at the expense of leaving destinations on the table).

OK, but EK won't just up sticks from the A380 when they move to DWC. It helps their business model. And leaving destinations on the table, that would be true if they had an A380 only fleet, but clearly they're intending to get smaller planes.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
SE Asia has lots of mid-size cities like Medan, Surabaya, Chiang Mai, Krabi, Batam, Kota Kinablu, Makassar, Davao, Balikpapan, etc. that could be served by EK next decade, but not with A380's or even 779's. That's saying nothing of Africa, secondary/tertiary Chinese cities, or further smaller European points like Basel. QR is already planning to serve Chiang Mai and Krabi, EK is left out of that goal by its slot constraints so far.

All seems reasonable.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
The ME3 already dominate Europe to big points in SE Asia like BKK - there's simply not much traffic left to steal there. TC knows that future growth is going to require serving smaller points, thus the 787/A350 order. It is very possible that EK's 2020's growth relies primarily on one-stop connections between these points and places like LHR and MUC. If that's so, then the A380 will play a lesser role at DWC, proportionally, than it will at DXB.

Smaller aircraft will help EK grow, but 70 A350s/787s are not going to replace A380s in any way, they are going to be starting new routes, which is a different sector. There may not be much growth elsewhere, but then just because an area isn't growing it doesn't mean the fleet being used to service it is shrinking. Until/unless they start flying A350/787 size aircraft to A380 destinations instead of A380s, my point stands: different sector. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest EK can use the A350/787 and A380 at the same time.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:05 am

To continue the discussion:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 202):
I can't see a 2031 A380ceo replacing a 2019 A380ceo but if you guys honestly think that could happen then all the more power to you.

Thing is, a 2031 A380 will be quite different than today's A380. I'm not talking about a NEO, but I wouldn't be surprised if RR further improves the T900 if EK commits to another 200 A380s or so. The cabin would be different too. Quoting Tim Clark:

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...-8-12-economic-improvement-a380neo

Quote:
“When we did the A380 in the early days I don’t think we optimized the space as best we could,” Clark said. “We were faced with a 500-seater and that is an awful lot of seats...but the demand for it is so strong that we now have to take the two decks back to bare metal and rebuild them."

Note this is not about 11-abreast. The current A380 cabins date from the early 2000s; pretty sure a 2031 A380 cabin will look different.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:39 am

A reply from Matt in the previous thread

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 200):
So unlike your argument, Mr Clark sees DWC as an opportunity to operate even more A380s.
DWC is an opportunity for 400 A380's, 1,000 787's, or 3,000 MoM's. The important point - Tortugamon's point - is that at DWC, EK's profit maximization will no longer be a matter of slot constraints. For now, DXB's limitations mandate A380's, later they will be only one of many options.

The slot restrictions may disappear, but the point that seems to be forgotten is the huge amount of premium seating the 388 delivers and the associated revenue that goes with those seats. Against the current fleet of 3 class 77W's, the 388 has 40 more premium seats and 90 more economy seats. The 779 will close that gap, but the difference will still be huge. Then there is the 380's oft spoken of but oft forgotten ability to command a premium over other types. I don't see EK giving up that revenue when they move to DWC. I see the 388neo being launched by then with EIS around the same time EK move to DWC



Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 203):
We're comparing the kind of improvements that made the A321 from a dog into a capable transcon plane, the A333 from a short range lifter to a medium/long haul lifter.

Great, then we are talking Billions not millions. The A380 has not had the same investment post EIS/Wing-Issues that the A330 has had.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Current 380's are around 2-4% better than early models, does this happen for free?

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 2):
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
Not at all true. The A330's and A340's will be gone this year or next IIRC.
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):
It's hard to consider a 2025 delivery a replacement for a plane that left a decade earlier.

You can replace something in the long term, but I'll take your word for it.

I see the 787/350's replacing the role of the 330 when EK have more slot availability, so in my opinion, they will replace the 330's, eventually.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:53 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 202):
Airbus has invested more in the A330 after its EIS than before. Your comparison is about billions, not millions.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 205):
Great, then we are talking Billions not millions. The A380 has not had the same investment post EIS/Wing-Issues that the A330 has had.

The ongoing A380 improvements are in the millions, not billions. Remember, the original argument was:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 195):
Hard to invest more billions in a program when you have to say to your board 'at least we aren't losing money on it?'

They are not investing billions into the program.

[Edited 2016-06-11 02:55:57]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:21 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 2):
70 A350s/787s are not going to replace A380s in any way, they are going to be starting new routes,

This will pull more pax into Dubai (DWC) from secondary airports and require MORE A380s on the Dubai : Global Hub routes, not fewer.
 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1443
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:47 pm

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 4):
The slot restrictions may disappear

Dont just think of takeoff & landing Slots, yes DWC will releave that! But take a look at the overall airspace & ATC issues on/over the area today already, and of course EY ,QR and a bunch of others will keep growing, albight at different rates than EK.
This alone will mean the 380 will continue to be an important tool for EK, even with DWC. The frame will continue to have a bright future with them for many years to come...... ..  
some you lose, others you can´t win!
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:53 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 2):
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest EK can use the A350/787 and A380 at the same time.

Certainly they will, nobody in their right mind disagrees. The point is about proportional capacity by type, not about whether they operate any type - a380 or 787/A350.

Soon EK could be ~70% A380 by capacity. What's the next most A380-heavy airline by capacity? SQ at maybe 20%? After that it's hard to find airlines above 10%.

If EK became even remotely normal after slot scarcity stops being the major constraint that's a potential catastrophe for the A380's future. An EK that is even 30% A380 by capacity, for example, could mean it doesn't need any A380's until 2030 - when it certainly won't be buying new-build CEO's.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thing is, a 2031 A380 will be quite different than today's A380. I'm not talking about a NEO

What ARE you talking about?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
pretty sure a 2031 A380 cabin will look different.

How? If not 11-abreast then what? They find an extra 1,000ft2 nobody noticed before?
Sure we'll see a few incremental revisions - a stair moved here, a galley there - but that's nibbling at the edges. And it's the A380 playing catch up to the space-efficiency programs imminent/done on its competitors. Even the soon-to-die 77W just gained a few seats by cabin reorganization.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2688
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:13 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
Certainly they will, nobody in their right mind disagrees. The point is about proportional capacity by type, not about whether they operate any type - A380 or 787/A350.

I don't get what significance it has: the A350s/787s will be used to open up new routes that are too small for the A380 and 77W.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
Soon EK could be ~70% A380 by capacity. What's the next most A380-heavy airline by capacity? SQ at maybe 20%? After that it's hard to find airlines above 10%.

OK... what of it? EK is a special case.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
If EK became even remotely normal after slot scarcity stops being the major constraint that's a potential catastrophe for the A380's future. An EK that is even 30% A380 by capacity, for example, could mean it doesn't need any A380's until 2030 - when it certainly won't be buying new-build CEO's.

Why would EK suddenly become normal? They're growing at a huge rate (unusual) and have stupid numbers of widebodies, and make extensive an otherwise niche aircraft. Just because the slot constraints go away it doesn't mean they'll uproot their entire A380 fleet, there are other considerations. Long range performance for a start.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
What ARE you talking about?

WIngtip improvements? Lots of incremental improvements? Spaceflex? Airbus find subtle ways to advance their products.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
If EK became even remotely normal after slot scarcity stops being the major constraint that's a potential catastrophe for the A380's future. An EK that is even 30% A380 by capacity, for example, could mean it doesn't need any A380's until 2030 - when it certainly won't be buying new-build CEO's.

EK is not 70% A380 due to lack of slots at Dubai - they're 70% because they have the traffic to maximize the capacity the A380 offers. And even if they no longer have to worry about slots at home, they do have destinations aboard where slots are still an issue - they're not going to move from 6xA388 to 10x779 at LHR, for example.

And let us not forget that a full A380 is a tremendously efficient revenue generator so I don't see EK moving to more frequencies with smaller frames as that will just raise their non-fuel costs (more crew costs, more airport and transit fees, more capital costs, more maintenance costs, etc.).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:05 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
when it certainly won't be buying new-build CEO's.

Why not? I do not see Emirates using 20 year old frames. I do expect Emirates to order further A380ceo, the first arriving in 2021.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:06 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):

I think Karel is talking about a 2031 A380neo. Technology will have moved on, or even who knows if it has moved on to allow a simple fit of two engines instead of 4 on a large aircraft? That may change operating dynamics.

Cabin walls being thinned may allow 9 abreast upstairs. No way the cabin walls can be as ridiculously thick as they are right now 15 years later.

Or perhaps the aircraft will have been terminated altogether and Airbus no longer in existence. It's a bit unknown.

Right now we do know Tim Clark wants winglets on the A380 so an efficiency gain today in that space (ie. split ones like the MAX?) can be worked on while efficiency in production needs to be maintain for this ramp down to 20 a year. The replacement cycle will come in large by 2022 for carriers like EK and LH, BA, etc. There will be a better idea if there should be a NEO or termination of program or CEO or whatever changes they want to make when 2020 comes around. The airline industry for long haul in general is in stagnation today.
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:52 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 12):
The replacement cycle will come in large by 2022 for carriers like EK and LH, BA, etc

You mean 2032 don't you? The only airline besides EK looking for replacements in that time frame would be SQ. BA and LH keep their fleets much longer and AF, MH, TG, and QAN most likely won't be needing any replacements.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:13 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thing is, a 2031 A380 will be quite different than today's A380. I'm not talking about a NEO, but I wouldn't be surprised if RR further improves the T900 if EK commits to another 200 A380s or so. The cabin would be different too.

But EK would commit to that number for a N E O, not cosmetic improvements like suggesting winglets and other weight loss initiatives.

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 12):
I think Karel is talking about a 2031 A380neo.

Karel specifically said

Quote:
Thing is, a 2031 A380 will be quite different than today's A380. I'm not talking about a NEO
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:29 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 12):
Right now we do know Tim Clark wants winglets on the A380

This thought has not simply jumped into his mind - I think Airbus must have done some work on this already
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:19 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 5):
The ongoing A380 improvements are in the millions, not billions.

And despite that relatively modest expenditure, they've made some pretty significant improvements:


Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
EK is not 70% A380 due to lack of slots at Dubai - they're 70% because they have the traffic to maximize the capacity the A380 offers. And even if they no longer have to worry about slots at home, they do have destinations aboard where slots are still an issue - they're not going to move from 6xA388 to 10x779 at LHR, for example.

True. and there are many destinations where EK have slot issues, bilateral constraints, curfew restrictions, or other limitations. But I think this is also only a part of the picture.

What many people fail to consider is that EK has a high percentage of connecting traffic compared with other airlines. This only works well for EK because they are very good at matching traffic to/from each destination via their multiple daily arrival and departure banks to minimise connection times.

Given that the majority of their destinations do not yet have sufficient demand to support more than a few daily frequencies, even using their smaller widebodies, it is better for EK to keep their frequencies to higher demand destinations lower than they might otherwise be to keep connection mismatches to a minimum.

I can actually see this meaning that when EK do move to DWC and have the ability to add many additional flights, we might at first actually see increased frequencies to their lower demand destinations, using smaller aircraft, and up-gauging of existing frequencies to higher demand destinations to cope with the additional demand that will ensue.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
And let us not forget that a full A380 is a tremendously efficient revenue generator so I don't see EK moving to more frequencies with smaller frames as that will just raise their non-fuel costs (more crew costs, more airport and transit fees, more capital costs, more maintenance costs, etc.).

Yes, why would you down-gauge from a 500+ seat aircraft to a less than 400 seat aircraft, with roughly similar margins, and give so much revenue away to the competition? Especially if you can attract higher load factors with the A380, as EK do (according to their last annual report).

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 8):
And it's the A380 playing catch up to the space-efficiency programs imminent/done on its competitors.

Could that perhaps be because they simply have not needed to so far? Every one of the 5 different airline's A380s that I've seen the inside of has had lots of unused space in various areas of the cabin. No airline has so far fitted out the A380 at anywhere near the density of other aircraft in their fleets (with the possible exception of a few ULH aircraft).

Between their initial configuration and the latest one, EK have managed to increase A380 main deck economy capacity by 38 (or 22 if you want to exclude the seats added by removing the crew rest), without doing anything to staircases or toilets. And that is before they have even started to make changes to the J and F cabins on the upper deck, where there is a lot more potential to add seats.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:25 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 14):
But EK would commit to that number for a N E O, not cosmetic improvements like suggesting winglets and other weight loss initiatives.

The benefits of winglets and other aerodynamic improvements, weight reductions, cabin reconfigurations and engine SFC reductions are more than just "cosmetic" when it comes to reducing operating costs and increasing revenue.
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:56 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 14):
Karel specifically said

I know that but it is silly to suggest in 2031 Airbus will still be producing a CEO. What-if scenario I think in terms of what sort of innovations can be made within 15 years - plenty but not as much benefit as new engines would. We can be realistic.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 15):

I know I said split scimitar style earlier but I believe this would be useful on shorter stage lengths only if compared to a standard winglet (greater span). This is an area where Airbus engineers can get creative and get at least 4% extra efficiency while staying within limits.
Inspire the truth.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:02 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 2):
OK, but EK won't just up sticks from the A380 when they move to DWC. It helps their business model. And leaving destinations on the table, that would be true if they had an A380 only fleet, but clearly they're intending to get smaller planes.

Who said they would? They will have between 120-150 A380s on-hand by the time they move to DWC. Some will be less than 5 years old. They will be operating several dozen of the type well into 2030s. That doesn't mean that all of these aircraft will be replaced by A380ceos.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):
Thing is, a 2031 A380 will be quite different than today's A380. I'm not talking about a NEO, but I wouldn't be surprised if RR further improves the T900 if EK commits to another 200 A380s or so.

But so will every airplane out there. Continuous improvements don't happen in a vaccuum and reserved for one program over another. The A330 removed tremendously because Airbus invested Billions as the program was profitable and they knew they could make much more with investments, and after EIS and there was MTOW growth to be gained that benefited the airplane relative to the competition. I don't think those circumstances are similar on the A380. Any SFC improvements made to one airplane is going to be similar to what the competition can bring.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 1):

Solid points and the comment in previous thread about girlfriends/A380-love was perfect. Too bad what happened to it.

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 4):
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Current 380's are around 2-4% better than early models, does this happen for free?

The improvements that have been made don't amount to billions. Unless we are talking about wiring issues/wing rib issues, etc. But even those aren't billions. I can provide some links substantiating my point if you like or you can see a 5% improvement launched for the 777 last year just for the next couple of years worth of production and we know that isn't billions or you can just take Karel's word for it here:

http://aviationweek.com/advanced-mac.../boeing-rolls-out-777-upgrade-plan

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 5):
They are not investing billions into the program.

Agreed they aren't. Yet the 77X is and it is coming with a 14% improvement. I find those economics to be hard for EK to ignore and maintain as just a 777-role replacement if the A380 only improves by its token amounts that every aircraft improves by.

If Airbus does not significantly update the A380 I do think there is a chance for a 777-10 which would be closer to the A380 in capacity (still ~20% away from the early A380s) but would be tremendously efficient while carrying cargo. Though I doubt such an aircraft will help on the Australia/America routes out of DXB and certainly LHR would still go A380 but it wouldn't require a 200+ A380 fleet.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 9):
They're growing at a huge rate

I have their revenue declining last year and passenger numbers are: 48.1 Million vs 51.9 Million or 7.9% - not exactly setting the world on fire numbers. Didn't RyanAir jump 18% last year? I would not call 7.9% huge.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/3...r-of-passengers-emirates-airlines/

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 9):
Long range performance for a start.

Absolutely, that is where the aircraft does exceptionally well. But how many flights does EK have over 10-11 hours? Australia/Americas. It does't take a fleet of 140 A380s to operate those flights now nor in the future.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 9):
WIngtip improvements? Lots of incremental improvements? Spaceflex? Airbus find subtle ways to advance their products.

And Boeing doesn't? The competition will be able to similarly improve.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 13):
You mean 2032 don't you? The only airline besides EK looking for replacements in that time frame would be SQ. BA and LH keep their fleets much longer and AF, MH, TG, and QAN most likely won't be needing any replacements.

Well said, absolutely. Even the EK replacement cycle doesn't really even pick up until the mid 2020s. Part of the reason why Airbus could not find any A380neo takers beyond EK.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 15):
This thought has not simply jumped into his mind - I think Airbus must have done some work on this already

Well they will have to work on the hurdle of going past the 80m box rule limits if they do. I agree the aircraft could greatly benefit.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 16):
And despite that relatively modest expenditure, they've made some pretty significant improvements:

Here is the summary of improvements being made to the 77W announced last year will be rolled into every aircraft by next quarter which totals up to 5% improvement and it isn't costing billions for that either. Competitively they remain as they were which didn't exactly favor the A380 in terms of the whole market. The 77X is getting a 14% bump and will improve after EIS as well. Just continuous improvements will not make a 2028 A380 competitive with a 779.


http://aviationweek.com/advanced-mac.../boeing-rolls-out-777-upgrade-plan

Quoting speedbored (Reply 16):
Yes, why would you down-gauge from a 500+ seat aircraft to a less than 400 seat aircraft, with roughly similar margins, and give so much revenue away to the competition?


Ask the dozens of 747 operators who down-gauged to the 777/A33 and I think it will give you an idea of how such a thing could happen.

tortugamon
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:55 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Yet the 77X is and it is coming with a 14% improvement.

Promised 14% improvement. Modelled 14% improvement. Promised from day one?
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:36 am

We go around and around on the A380, but...................

I place a high weighting on comments by EK board and senior executives, who actually acquire and operate aircraft, are privy to contractural and best endeavours promises for current and ordered models, are familiar with EK's revenue, costs, profitability, customer research, and many other variables, and have a 10-20 year industry vision.

In contrast, I place a low weighting on journalists, competitors and self-confessed experts, including some on a.net with a propensity to quote themselves.

If EK keep acquiring A380's, we can only assume some of the most negative posters are wrong, or TC & the EK board are idiots (or are trying to mislead), or 777X promises are not quite as certain as the media hype.

The acid test, will surely be EK follow-on orders which must occur in less than 24 months, to ensure production continuity.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:46 am

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 21):
I place a high weighting on comments by EK board and senior executives, who actually acquire and operate aircraft, are privy to contractural and best endeavours promises for current and ordered models, are familiar with EK's revenue, costs, profitability, customer research, and many other variables, and have a 10-20 year industry vision.

So when the CEO of such an airline says:

“My main concern is that they stop producing the plane.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...o-pushes-to-get-its-142-superjumbo

“I want my 140 (A380s) delivered.”
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...irates-airbus-talks-a380neo-lapsed

Does that sound like someone who is really planning on replacing his 140 A380s with other A380s? It doesn't to me.

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 20):
Promised 14% improvement. Modelled 14% improvement. Promised from day one?

Well as you don't trust a-netters   here is Sir Tim Clark himself saying 16-17% fuel burn improvement over the 77W:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MipvTMvQ1TU

I don't think any of us have an idea of the actual contract terms. However its enough of an improvement that incremental improvements on the A380 won't be able to keep up in my opinion.

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 21):
The acid test, will surely be EK follow-on orders which must occur in less than 24 months, to ensure production continuity.

Ensure production continuity? I do not see how it is even possible at this point. I just can't get past the numbers: 20 per year production rate, Only 83 net orders left to fill. Just who is going to buy the ~45 units to keep the line going in 2022/2023/2024 let alone the ~45 units it will take just to get there. Even a large EK order won't do it and they say they can't operate more than 130 at one time before moving to DWC. The line will have to be shut. I don't see a way around it.

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

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:25 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Ask the dozens of 747 operators who down-gauged to the 777/A33 and I think it will give you an idea of how such a thing could happen.

Why? They were almost all high O&D operators, or using the 747 for range rather than capacity. Totally different from EK.

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 21):
I place a high weighting on comments by EK board and senior executives

Me too.

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 21):
If EK keep acquiring A380's, we can only assume some of the most negative posters are wrong, or TC & the EK board are idiots (or are trying to mislead), or 777X promises are not quite as certain as the media hype.

I know which one those negative posters will go with  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):
Does that sound like someone who is really planning on replacing his 140 A380s with other A380s? It doesn't to me.

Yes, it does. Why else would he be concerned that Airbus might stop production if he didn't want to do exactly that?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):
Well as you don't trust a-netters here is Sir Tim Clark himself saying 16-17% fuel burn improvement over the 77W:

A less misleading quote is "they are talking about 16-17%", i.e. Boeing are claiming it will be that much. TC is far too sensible to quote specific numbers when, at this stage, even Boeing can't possibly be certain how much more efficient the 779 will be. One thing you can be pretty sure of is that the contractual guarantees will be lower than that, especially for a launch customer.

It's worth remembering that fuel is only around 26% of total costs for EK. So, compared to the 77W, the total cost impact of the 779 fuel efficiency, will only be around 4%. Some costs will probably increase (e.g. capital cost).

I hear a lot of people making claims that the 779 will beat the A380 on efficiency. Don't those people find it odd that Boeing, on their website, only claim that the 779 will be the "most efficient twin". Surely if it was going to be significantly better than the A380, they would be claiming that it would be the most efficient widebody, or large aircraft?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:43 am

Quoting speedbored (Reply 23):
They were almost all high O&D operators, or using the 747 for range rather than capacity.

Yet this thread from Astuteman seems to indicate that the 744 only had a range advantage for 4 years. Hmmm. Was The 747 Really "bought For Its Range"? (by astuteman Jun 8 2013 in Tech Ops)

Not sure why high O&D makes a 747 better than a 777.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 23):
I hear a lot of people making claims that the 779 will beat the A380 on efficiency.

Sounds like you are listening to well-informed individuals. That is half the battle.

tortugamon

[Edited 2016-06-11 23:45:03]
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:50 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 24):
Sounds like you are listening to well-informed individuals. That is half the battle.

I am, but very few of them are included in the "lot" I was referring to.

As I said, even Boeing aren't confident enough to claim it on their 77X product pages yet. Most well-informed individuals are a little sceptical of some of the claims being made and are waiting until the aircraft actually flies before they form a firm opinion.
 
olle
Posts: 2466
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:20 am

Still a upgraded plane (B777X) shall compete with a cleans scheet plane (A350) and it shall do this close without problem. I also have my doubts.

The upgraded A330 competes with B787 only because the B787 comes with a price tag around 25% higher.

Most time I also have the impression that the B777X year model 2021 is compared to the numbers of A350 year model 2015. Now Arbus says that improvements is on its way for 2020 for the A350 with a few %. Will the bigger 777 be able to compete with the little smaller A350?
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:18 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 4):
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Current 380's are around 2-4% better than early models, does this happen for free?

The improvements that have been made don't amount to billions. Unless we are talking about wiring issues/wing rib issues, etc. But even those aren't billions. I can provide some links substantiating my point if you like or you can see a 5% improvement launched for the 777 last year just for the next couple of years worth of production and we know that isn't billions or you can just take Karel's word for it here:

I'm not sure what point you are substantiating about the 380 improvements by linking a slide about 777 improvements. What I asked was for evidence that the 380 hasn't had the same investment that the 330 has had post EIS, which is what you claimed in reply 203 of the 1st thread. Karel said the 330 gets about $150m per year in continuous improvement, he also provided a link to the 380 continuous improvement. It may not be exactly the same value, but the 380 is getting continuous improvement which does cost, unless you think it happens for free. And the only person who is talking about billions of investment is you, then said its not billions above?????

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 9):
Long range performance for a start.

Absolutely, that is where the aircraft does exceptionally well. But how many flights does EK have over 10-11 hours? Australia/Americas. It does't take a fleet of 140 A380s to operate those flights now nor in the future.

It doesn't take that many to operate those flights, but they will not be taken off shorter flights for the sake of increasing frequency. The 350/787 will add to the frequencies and the 388 will remain. If anything, with traffic growing, and the added frequencies from the smaller types, more 380's will be needed as the PAX numbers grow. I just cannot see the 380 fleet shrinking regardless of which airport EK is based at(assuming the 380 is still in production).
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:44 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):

This is the best part of replying to turtugamon's posts. Pointing out the facts.

1. Clark will replace his 140 or 200 or however amount of A380s with...A380s. CEO or NEO in 2031 regardless.

2. EK is not the only operator of the A380. Last time I check there is QF, LH. SQ, CZ, NH, BA, QR, AF etc. Will they order more? Some will. Will the line close? The anti A380's wet dream.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):

1. Tortugamons' said that the 777X will be guaranteed 14% fuel reduction on arrival but 0 reduction on any future A380. Common sense much? For example, new wingtips. 5% alone. New PIPs over next 5 years. Further 4%. Increase in MTOW. Extra payload. Doesn't take Einstein (or kindy kid) to figure out.

2. A 2028 A380 will be at the least a -900 regardless of a CEO or NEO. World travel demand will allow for that and for any 777-10 Boeing want to make with technology leaps.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 24):

Sounds like you are listening to well-informed individuals. That is half the battle

Truth hurts doesn't it? I'm glad you listen to me and and others well-informed, ie. Karel.  
Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 27):

The fact is that there's no substantiation here. Just a load of confusing mess. Airbus proved solid gains with the A330 with constant investment And the A380 can do that too. An airframe that is optimised for a heavier and larger version means there is room to move and with technological leaps and change (inevitable) this allows a future -900 to be even better.

The billions of investment is the cost of the whole program itself. Wrong figure.  
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
metalinyoni
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:52 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:00 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 28):
Pointing out the facts.

1. Clark will replace his 140 or 200 or however amount of A380s with...A380s. CEO or NEO in 2031 regardless.

Thats not a fact. There is no way of knowing that until Ek actually place the order. There is a high likely hood of them doing so but considering the time frame and the many possible things that could change in the interim; fuel prices, regional instability, change of management, not to mention new aircraft types etc etc, it is far from fact that EK will replace the A380 fleet in 2031 with more A380 even if Mr Clark is saying that they will. Clark most likely will not be around at EK then considering he turns 67 this year.

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 28):
2. A 2028 A380 will be at the least a -900 regardless of a CEO or NEO

This is not a fact either. Possibility yes, fact not.

Please stop your personal vendetta against Tortugamon. Feel free to correct him if he is incorrect but don't correct him by making the same mistakes by spouting possibilities / probabilities as fact.

Back to the thread......

[Edited 2016-06-12 09:08:21]
300, 310, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 342, 343, 345, 346, 380, 707, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 742, 74L, 743, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 772, 77L 773, 77W, D10, AT46, AT76, AT75, 142, DH3, ER4, AR1, AR8
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:06 pm

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 29):

Hi there, perhaps world order will change by 2031 and EK will be finished. The A380 program is terminated. But a random person is on a silly rant about how the 777 will soldier on but A380 won't. It's not a personal vendetta rather it's pointing to factual information. Ie. You point me out for fact and possibility when tortugamon state above the 777X is guaranteed to have 14% efficient. The plane hasn't even been built so what is that? But naturally we know Boeing is a fantastic airliner builder so they will get their targets. At this stage nothing suggests the A380 won't continue to 2031 and won't have significant improvement until then. If you want to argue probability and fact then we can say the 777X has a probability of being dead by that stage and long haul flights will be dominated by even smaller aircraft like the 787 and A330neo. It is resting heavily on EK as much as the A380 program is.

As you say, back to the thread... Stagnation of the stagnated.

[Edited 2016-06-12 09:08:34]
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
metalinyoni
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:52 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:14 pm

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 30):
It's not a personal vendetta rather it's pointing to factual information.

But your facts are not facts. Your information is not factual. You are as guilty as Tortugamon saying stuff is fact when it is not. Being of high probability doesn't make it fact.

Fact - noun; a thing that is known or proved to be true.
300, 310, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 342, 343, 345, 346, 380, 707, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 742, 74L, 743, 744, 752, 753, 762, 763, 764, 772, 77L 773, 77W, D10, AT46, AT76, AT75, 142, DH3, ER4, AR1, AR8
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:39 pm

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 27):
And the only person who is talking about billions of investment is you, then said its not billions above?????

I am suggesting that it will take a large scale investment program to make the A380 competitive with the next generation aircraft like the 777X/A350. Up to this point we have not seen that level of large scale investment. 2-4% improvement is not a Billion dollar investment. The A320neo program is about $1.5 Billion and that should get a 14% improvement. 77X is $5-6 Billion and is aimed at attaining 14%. A330neo, I believe, is about $2.5 Billion and that is looking 13%+ improvements. I do not have access to Airbus' detailed spending....I just have all of these other instances. Feel free to believe that Airbus has spent billions getting only 2% plus but I don't think they are that careless with many. I agree with Karel it is not billions. Can we move on?

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 27):
It doesn't take that many to operate those flights, but they will not be taken off shorter flights for the sake of increasing frequency.

I don't think they care to increase frequency. I do think they care about making the most money possible and that is heavily related with spending as little money as possible.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:22 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 23):
TC is far too sensible to quote specific numbers when, at this stage, even Boeing can't possibly be certain how much more efficient the 779 will be.

Clark may not, but his Fleet Operations chief has specific numbers in mind, which is why he recommended the 777X order to Clark.



Quoting speedbored (Reply 23):
Don't those people find it odd that Boeing, on their website, only claim that the 779 will be the "most efficient twin". Surely if it was going to be significantly better than the A380, they would be claiming that it would be the most efficient widebody, or large aircraft?

Perhaps because Boeing is desperately trying to secure any order they can for the 747-8?
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:30 pm

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 31):
Fact - noun; a thing that is known or proved to be true

Well - there are different kinds of facts in this case. It is for sure not a fact that EK will get more 380s. However it is a fact that the success of EK is very much due to them having the exact opposite business model as the traditional (in particular American) legacy airlines, namely to prioritize size over frequency. It is the very secret why they are so succesfull while others are not. EK has proven successful with this model as they go against what is otherwise for many a “known truth”.

Now it will take a lengthy discussion (which I do not have the time to do right now!) to explain why size in the case of EK is far more valuable than frequency! But it is!
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:49 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Clark may not, but his Fleet Operations chief has specific numbers in mind, which is why he recommended the 777X order to Clark.

True but he will also have covered his back with a load of performance guarantees and penalty/cancellation clauses.

Lots of people have seen the numbers from Boeing and know what the 779 performance is projected to be but I've also heard many people express the opinion that Boeing are really pushing 77X performance very very hard indeed - many expressing considerable scepticism about whether or not Boeing/GE will be able to hit those targets until at least a couple of years after EIS.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
Perhaps because Boeing is desperately trying to secure any order they can for the 747-8?

A couple of years ago, I might have gone with that explanation. I can't believe that Boeing would have any hope at all of any potential customer being taken in by that now. They know that, after the remaining very small 748i backlog, the program is pretty much a freighter only program now.

I'm also sure that you are savvy enough about aviation to know that no airline is ever possibly going to be taken in by anyone claiming that the 748i is more efficient than the 779 is projected to be.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:03 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 34):
Now it will take a lengthy discussion (which I do not have the time to do right now!) to explain why size in the case of EK is far more valuable than frequency! But it is!

  

The EK business model is very clever. I often wonder why no other airlines have considered doing things the same way, or been brave enough to try copying them.

The only other airline that might be trying to emulate EK (though not very well) is QR. But I doubt that QR will ever achieve anything like the success of EK while they are run by someone who is there by virtue of his family connections rather than ability or experience.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens at EK when TC decides to retire, which I expect to happen sometime within the next 5 years.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:17 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 36):
The EK business model is very clever. I often wonder why no other airlines have considered doing things the same way, or been brave enough to try copying them.

The EK model works because of DXB's location and lack of local competition (they completely dominate their home hub). As to why other carriers do not emulate it - they let EK get too big and have now lost far too much traffic to EK.

Though even without EK gutting them, I honestly don't think BA, LH, AF, SQ, MH and TG could have made use of more than maybe twice as many A380s as they took as their models directly compete with each other and that dilutes the traffic. EK operates much more as a regional operation in terms of stage length which allows higher productivity per frame per day.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
I am suggesting that it will take a large scale investment program to make the A380 competitive with the next generation aircraft like the 777X/A350. Up to this point we have not seen that level of large scale investment. 2-4% improvement is not a Billion dollar investment. The A320neo program is about $1.5 Billion and that should get a 14% improvement. 77X is $5-6 Billion and is aimed at attaining 14%. A330neo, I believe, is about $2.5 Billion and that is looking 13%+ improvements. I do not have access to Airbus' detailed spending....I just have all of these other instances. Feel free to believe that Airbus has spent billions getting only 2% plus but I don't think they are that careless with many. I agree with Karel it is not billions. Can we move on?

All of the projects you have listed have new engines that allow them to achieve most of their improvement gains. If we think the A380 will not receive a new engine before 2030 then any improvements will have to be made by either aero improvements or adding more seats. These projects will not cost billions but will achieve the results that airline might be looking for. Add a new engine if there is interest from enough airlines and you are looking at gains that would be very intriguing to airlines.

I think most of the improvements for the A380 will have to come from more seats more than from anything else. It works for the 779, adding more seats will gain more % points for the A380. Now selling those seats everyday is another matter entirely.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 36):
The EK business model is very clever. I often wonder why no other airlines have considered doing things the same way, or been brave enough to try copying them.

The only other airline that might be trying to emulate EK (though not very well) is QR. But I doubt that QR will ever achieve anything like the success of EK while they are run by someone who is there by virtue of his family connections rather than ability or experience.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens at EK when TC decides to retire, which I expect to happen sometime within the next 5 years.

I guess QR is the only airline that is in a position to tackle EK and their business model, yet you get the feeling that the growth and spending has been reigned in a bit at QR as they need to function like a business should if they want to compete in other countries. It is entirely the right of other countries to restrict access if they have evidence that a airline that is competing against ones based in their own country is getting free money thrown at them without a thought for profits or the amount of losses. QR seems to have slowed down a bit since the US3 started the allegations, EK is another monster all together though.

EK will be difficult to emulate by its neighbours because it is a more mature airline. If you look at what EK was 10 years after launch and you see where EY is I think you may find EY is further ahead, yet I doubt we will see EY being ahead of EK at 20 years after launch. EY has to compete with EK so their growth will stagnate somewhat compared to EK, who had it all to themselves for many years.

It will be interesting to see how the airlines go forward in the future, will they become closer in heir offerings once their schedules become somewhat comparable, or will you see some distinction, or at least an attempt to distinguish either product on offer to flyers.

Either way when you have either of the ME3 or all 3 competing on a route there will be one winner, the consumer.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:31 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
I am suggesting that it will take a large scale investment program to make the A380 competitive with the next generation aircraft like the 777X/A350.

I go back to the Leeham figures I have to find the 380ceo isn't too far off on fuel burn against the 779 and better on all other costs on a normalized per seat basis. So to say it needs large scale investment to be competitive with the 777X doesn't add up for me. The figures I am using are probably a couple of years old, weather it would change if they where up to date I don't know. If you have anything newer or different please share with us as I would like an update.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
Feel free to believe that Airbus has spent billions getting only 2% plus but I don't think they are that careless with many.

OK, that explains it better, I probably didn't quite get your points as they are spread over 100+ posts and 2 threads. I think Airbus is spending $100+m a year on average in continuous improvements as they do with all their current programs.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:11 am

Quoting speedbored (Reply 35):
many expressing considerable scepticism about whether or not Boeing/GE will be able to hit those targets until at least a couple of years after EIS.

Do you have any credible sources about this skepticism? ~14% is a pretty normal increase in efficiency when talking about what will be a 16-year old aircraft program by then. If the A330neo can do it with engines not built for them and without a stretch I don't understand the skepticism. GE is promising 10% on the engines alone. That multi-billion wing investment has to be worth a couple.

I suspect we won't get any sources but I thought I would at least try and pound my head against the wall later when I am disappointed yet again.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 36):
The EK business model is very clever. I often wonder why no other airlines have considered doing things the same way, or been brave enough to try copying them.

Sure does look a lot like the SQ business model to me. Just centered in a different place. Its not so novel. Being 8 hours away from 80% of the World's population and living in a place with practically no local competition is key.

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 39):
I go back to the Leeham figures I have to find the 380ceo isn't too far off on fuel burn against the 779 and better on all other costs on a normalized per seat basis. So to say it needs large scale investment to be competitive with the 777X doesn't add up for me.

Well the A380 vs 77W sales experience didn't actually do that well for the A380 and yet Boeing is investing $5-7 Billion on improving the 777. I have a hard time seeing how the A380 doesn't need a large scale investment just to keep up this already poor competitive balance.

Certainly the A380 is intertwined in the EK business model probably unlike any airline has been intertwined with any particular widebody ever? But I believe this circumstances are ripe for change due to the lack of investment in the A380 and the excessive investment in DWC. Others clearly disagree which I welcome.

Here is some dated Leeham data with at least one error about this subject:
http://leehamnews.com/2014/02/03/upd...-a-neo-version-and-whats-involved/

Not sure if mine is any newer. Leeham's conclusions have always been that Airbus needs a major investment to match the 779. In fact the article linked above ends with: "if Airbus is going to maintain an economic advantage with its four engined airplane vs the twin-engine 777-9, an A380neo is a must."

AKA- a several Billion $ investment.

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

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:46 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Do you have any credible sources about this skepticism?

Yes, I do but not that I can post. Unfortunately, it's impossible to post face-to-face conversations, or do you seriously expect me to start recording every conversation just for your benefit?.

This is why, unliek many others here, I always try to make it perfectly clear when what I am posting is hearsay or opinion (or both in this case):

Quoting speedbored (Reply 35):
I've also heard many people express the opinion
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
14% is a pretty normal increase in efficiency when talking about what will be a 16-year old aircraft program by then

I didn't claim it wasn't. I simply said I had heard scepticism about whether they will be able to hit that pretty aggressive target at EIS. Performance guarantees that I'm aware of suggest that Boeing might be similarly sceptical too.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
I suspect we won't get any sources but I thought I would at least try and pound my head against the wall later when I am disappointed yet again.

Perhaps manage your expectations better by reading posts more carefully?
 
PhoenixVIP
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:41 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:30 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Do you have any credible sources about this skepticism? ~14% is a pretty normal increase in efficiency when talking about what will be a 16-year old aircraft program by then. If the A330neo can do it with engines not built for them and without a stretch I don't understand the skepticism. GE is promising 10% on the engines alone. That multi-billion wing investment has to be worth a couple.

I suspect we won't get any sources but I thought I would at least try and pound my head against the wall later when I am disappointed yet again.

Maybe you should be disappointed. The 777X isn't even built and therefore as you say so much about the A380 there's no guarantee that it will have 14% increase in efficiency. If we argue that then a 2031 A380CEO will also be over 14% more efficient than today's model with new wingtips and PIPs. But apparently the A380 is a basket case in your book???????

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Well the A380 vs 77W sales experience didn't actually do that well for the A380 and yet Boeing is investing $5-7 Billion on improving the 777. I have a hard time seeing how the A380 doesn't need a large scale investment just to keep up this already poor competitive balance.

Several billion when the A380-900 stuff needs to be dusted off. That's too easy. Unlike the 777X which is entirely a newer design by stretching the old platform.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Certainly the A380 is intertwined in the EK business model probably unlike any airline has been intertwined with any particular widebody ever?

You always coveniently (Edit: intentionally) forget that QF, SQ, LH, BA etc operate A380s too and require them for their ops.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Not sure if mine is any newer. Leeham's conclusions have always been that Airbus needs a major investment to match the 779.

If a 2021 777X can't be significantly better than an 2007 A380 then Boeing really have fallen to a new low. Embarrassment in all fronts.
  

Quoting speedbored (Reply 41):
Perhaps manage your expectations better by reading posts more carefully?

no!  
Inspire the truth.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:53 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Sure does look a lot like the SQ business model to me. Just centered in a different place. Its not so novel. Being 8 hours away from 80% of the World's population and living in a place with practically no local competition is key.

Wasn't it KL that did it first? I don't think it is a particular airline that can claim the model, it is a model where you connect passengers via a hub. I am actually sure it was done by US carriers before, but rather than international they did it with regional flights. The only difference between the operations is the location where the hub is located. Singapore allowed SQ to draw the EU-AUS traffic from the European carriers. The UAE location is just a little better than Singapore.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Well the A380 vs 77W sales experience didn't actually do that well for the A380 and yet Boeing is investing $5-7 Billion on improving the 777. I have a hard time seeing how the A380 doesn't need a large scale investment just to keep up this already poor competitive balance.

Do you think the timing of the new engine programs should be looked at as well? The A320 EIS was 1986 and new engines were put on the frame in 2016, 30 years. The 737NG EIS was 1998 and the MAX will EIS in 2017, 19 years. The A330 will receive its NEO in 2017 after 23 years and the 777 will X in 2017 after 22 years.

If you take 20 years as a timeframe for engines to improve to allow for sufficient improvement for an airframe you would look at 2025 for an A380neo so this fits with the information out there at the moment. I believe we will see a NEO (demand permitting) for EIS around that time and for the amount of money you quote for the program. Anything else would be premature and would not provide a sufficient improvement to restore parity with the frames that are receiving new engines.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Not sure if mine is any newer. Leeham's conclusions have always been that Airbus needs a major investment to match the 779. In fact the article linked above ends with: "if Airbus is going to maintain an economic advantage with its four engined airplane vs the twin-engine 777-9, an A380neo is a must."

AKA- a several Billion $ investment.

Airbus will have to put new engines on the A380 to maintain their advantage over the 777 with new engines. There is a shock, stop the presses. I am reading maintain advantage though, not just be competitive...
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:02 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40):
Leeham's conclusions have always been that Airbus needs a major investment to match the 779.

There are a number of problems with the "analysis" in that article:
779 seat counts show almost a 14% increase from the 77W. Even Boeing only shows ~7% increase in their typical numbers. The 779 numbers are also based on a smaller seat.
Comparisons are based on fuel costs per seat and ignore other costs, many of which make a significant difference.
While the article alludes to what is most important to the airline (i.e. profit) by claiming "an aircraft is judged in part by the difference between Revenue per Available Seat Mile (RASM) and Cost per Available Seat Mile (CASM)", it completely ignores the fact that it is total profit that matters, so the difference in seat numbers, and load factors, must be taken into account. An aircraft generating 25% more profit per seat would still generate less total profit than an aircraft with 30% more seats, for example.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:43 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
The EK model works because of DXB's location and lack of local competition (they completely dominate their home hub). As to why other carriers do not emulate it - they let EK get too big and have now lost far too much traffic to EK

.
While absolutely agreeing with your last statement, I do not agree with the first. EK do not need a local rival at DBX in order to get strong competition. Any airport within say an hour or two's flight from DBX could be home to an airline giving EK a decent run for its money using more or less the same model as EK. DBX is certainly ideally located for EKs model. But a number of others are too
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:06 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 9):
A350s/787s will be used to open up new routes that are too small for the A380 and 77W.

It will be used for that and, perhaps, to increase frequencies to low-frequency destinations. Folks here have been saying that EK gets away with lower frequencies but that's not true for a lot of places. Surely EK's 8x-daily service to London figures in its ability to take traffic there. Same with other big city routes.

In 2025, EK may look at its competitive position in places like DFW (once daily) and decide that greater frequency would be more profitable. The frequency option is unavailable right now because of slot constraints, but at DWC it can.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
the comment in previous thread about girlfriends/A380-love was perfect. Too bad what happened to it.

Glad at least you got a chuckle. Mods are so serious here...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 9):
WIngtip improvements? Lots of incremental improvements? Spaceflex? Airbus find subtle ways to advance their products.

And Boeing doesn't? The competition will be able to similarly improve.

This is the annoying thing about this thread. You're making a point that requires only moderate sophistication to understand - that a product's improvements have to be viewed as part of a competitive marketplace. Yet it takes literally dozens of posts for this point to be recognized.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 25):
As I said, even Boeing aren't confident enough to claim it on their 77X product pages yet.

This is total bs. Boeing don't blush at all to say the 748 is more efficient than the A380 - something nobody believes. Airbus actually sued Boeing over those statements and Boeing won. So there are literally no legal repercussions to using fuzzy math in efficiency comparisons, and it Boeing wanted to directly compare 777-9 efficiency versus A380 they would.

Amedeo, by the way, sees the A380 and 779 as having nearly identical efficiency per unit of floor area. www.amedeo.aero/a380.

With the 779's greater cargo capacity, this leaves little doubt about which is the most efficient plane by unit costs.

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 30):
a random person is on a silly rant about how the 777 will soldier on but A380 won't

Tortugamon isn't saying the 77W will carry on.
He's making the simple point that the 777 will carry on in its "X" variant only because of the billions invested in it and the very substantial efficiency margins gained.

The A380 could barely sell enough frames reach production breakeven when 77W was its main competition. With the new plastic twins as additional competition, the A380 is a very, very hard sell.

It will take more than few cabin tweaks and winglets - if those ever come - for the A380 to match the 777X's efficiency improvement. Until/unless the A380 can match the 777's improvement, there's no reason to expect its competitive position and its sales to recover even to a 2010 level.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:17 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):
I am suggesting that it will take a large scale investment program to make the A380 competitive with the next generation aircraft like the 777X/A350.
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
It will be used for that and, perhaps, to increase frequencies to low-frequency destinations. Folks here have been saying that EK gets away with lower frequencies but that's not true for a lot of places. Surely EK's 8x-daily service to London figures in its ability to take traffic there. Same with other big city routes.

That is low frequency. If you want to move that amount of passengers you can not go lower. Using 777-9 in the future would need at least 12 flights, If you want to move the same amount of premier passengers, you have to go higher.
Anyway it is a bad example, there are enough airports getting 1 or 2 EK flights and those are either 777 or A380, at least in the near future.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:23 am

Quoting PhoenixVIP (Reply 42):
Several billion when the A380-900 stuff needs to be dusted off.

Even EK doesn't see a need for a stretch. I don't see the -900 happening ever. Even if the wing's *area* was designed to get a -900 off the ground, its short span means that a heavier fuselage and payload are going to generate an enormous amount of induced drag. Induced drag is already abnormally high for the A380, adding to that prevents a -900 from delivering game-changing efficiency. More importantly, with higher trip costs the number of routes on which the plane could work will be such a small niche.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 43):
If you take 20 years as a timeframe for engines to improve to allow for sufficient improvement for an airframe you would look at 2025 for an A380neo

Business investment decisions aren't made based on some calendar - "well it's been 20 years, I guess we should do new engines."

No, they're because (1) a response to competitive pressure/opportunity is needed and (2) that response will cost less than the money made off doing the response. The A320neo, for example, came about due to Cseries pressure and an opportunity to take business from Boeing. The A330neo was mandated by greater 787 availability, which would have sunk the A330ceo. The 777X is here because of the A350-1000.

(1) holds for the A380: it won't sell any non-EK frames once the 777-9 is up and running. But (2) does not hold as Airbus hasn't been able to close a business case for the plane.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 44):
An aircraft generating 25% more profit per seat would still generate less total profit than an aircraft with 30% more seats, for example.

Simple statement and simple answer: use more planes. It's not profit *per plane* that matters; it's profits period. If they had equal per seat costs, 3 777-9's would make as much profit as 2 A380's - before taking cargo and frequency's impact on RASM into account.

The only position in which this answer isn't valid is where slots are constrained. But Tortugamon and I have been saying all along the EK's A380 strategy makes sense for exactly that reason at DXB.

Step back and look beyond DXB though. Right now Airbus has ~18 orders in the backlog elsewhere. This plane simply has very little commercial appeal unless you're trying to dominate the world from two runways. Only on A.net, only among A380 hacks, is the previous sentence even remotely controversial.

[Edited 2016-06-13 04:28:58]
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2989
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:26 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47):
That is low frequency. If you want to move that amount of passengers you can not go lower. Using 777-9 in the future would need at least 12 flights, If you want to move the same amount of premier passengers, you have to go higher.
Anyway it is a bad example, there are enough airports getting 1 or 2 EK flights and those are either 777 or A380, at least in the near future.

I don't get what you are saying at all.

8x daily is not low-frequency.

The places with 1 or 2 flights might or might not remain so once, long term, EK has the option of higher frequencies. You can't point at a current practice (low frequencies) and claim it is optimal, when the alternative practice (higher frequencies) is simply impossible.

Who is online

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