Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 11:52 am

reply 48
Matt6461

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.

100% agree.Will never be seen.For all the above reasons.

I am no aerodynamics expert (not at all actually!).But if it were possible (assuming they fit modern BW's on the wings).I would try and reduce upper surface pressure on the outer top surface (they have got more lift than they need anyway) and re-profile outer wing elements to reduce wing tip vortex drag as much as they can.

The NEO will be built Airbus have said this many times.Its a question of when and what engine really.An 'RR what'.

Note RR pays this bill not Airbus.The engine has to be in the 787/350 thrust range so will clearly have other uses.But a total 380 replacement market of 250 AC (I think that's fair and conservative) is a 1000 engine run plus. They will bite- esp as the engine will fit on other AC.

Probably hear about it in Paris next year. (RR will have done this summers planned ground running with their Advance core by then so will know what's what by then.(The cold end work is already done)
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:25 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):
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.

No they aren't made on a time basis of 20 years. Unless you have an engine that is somehow 15% better than a new engine that has been newly designed at the same time you will have to wait for the improvement and looking at the examples it seems that it takes about 20 years from EIS for those improvements to be realised. That is why a 787 is more efficient than the A330, it has newer engines that accounts for the majority of the efficiency gains. Once you slap those same engines on the A330 the efficiency gains from the all new plastic super plane is cut down to single figures.

So unless you have an example where there is an engine that is better at EIS than its competitor by more than 10% any design will have to wait about 2 decades before they will look at a new engine as this is the current pace of engine development.

All the new engine option frames that you mention as well only happened because there was an engine available that is a lot more efficient than the current offerings. The A320 was able to use the GTF because it was launched on the C-Series, do you think there would have been no A320neo if there was no C-Series? I believe the GTF would still have been available to whoever needed it. Where is the engine right now that will help the A380 gain 15% it needs to leapfrog the competition?


Edited to clarify statement.

[Edited 2016-06-13 05:27:02]
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:37 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
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.

Go on then, give us a laugh, tell us why they do not "want" to.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
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.

Odd then that the A380 has sold 3.5 times as many frames in the 2 years since the 77X launch than it did in the 2 years prior.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
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.

Well we will have to wait until the 779 enters service to find out for sure. Given that EK are now revising up their A380 configuration densities, I suspect that EK will provide a perfect opportunity to compare the two.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 49):
I don't get what you are saying at all.
8x daily is not low-frequency.

8x daily is the lowest possible frequency that EK can do ex-LHR unless they want to leave passengers behind. There is no larger aircraft for them to up-gauge to.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):
3 777-9's would make as much profit as 2 A380's

On some routes it might. But there are many routes with other restrictions, where it would not. Even then, there are not that many routes that support 2 A380s from a single airline so it's probably a moot point.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):
The only position in which this answer isn't valid is where slots are constrained.

Not true. Curfews, connection options, peak demand times, bilaterals, and many other factors, can also invalidate that position.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:10 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 49):
I don't get what you are saying at all.

Perhaps you should try to think rational. You take the one town were EK has a lot of lights to, 6 Emirates A380 + 2 A380 by their partner Qantas. Emirates is flying 3 A380 to LGW. Everything in the high load factor range of about 90%. Their is no way of moving that amount of pax between Dubai and London with fewer flights. How in the world can that be an example of Emirates going for high frequency?
I have seen a lot of silly arguments from you, but that must be one of the silliest.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:35 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 53):
I have seen a lot of silly arguments from you

Not worth further engagement right now.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 52):
Odd then that the A380 has sold 3.5 times as many frames in the 2 years since the 77X launch than it did in the 2 years prior.

Not at all odd that you appear to think the A380 isn't in a worse position now that the 777X is in play. Of course you would think that, or say that you think it. I can't seriously engage this "point" either, if it is even your point. Who knows with you.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:48 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 54):
I have seen a lot of silly arguments from you

Not worth further engagement right now.

Because it is quite difficult to defend a silly argument
 
User avatar
metalinyoni
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:52 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:58 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 50):
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.

If Airbus did design the wing with the -900 in mind and they decide that they will never build it, when it comes to the NEO, would it be prohibitively expensive to redesign the wing, optimising it for the -800? Or is this already being discussed regarding the NEO?
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
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:06 pm

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 56):
If Airbus did design the wing with the -900 in mind and they decide that they will never build it, when it comes to the NEO, would it be prohibitively expensive to redesign the wing, optimising it for the -800?

It'd be very expensive.

Prohibitively? Depends on how they'd see the design costs, build costs and orders stacking up.


Its Matt's favourite topic; he'll be able to go into it in much more detail.

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 56):
Or is this already being discussed regarding the NEO?

I'm sure all sorts of options are being discussed. I suppose the question for a new wing is - is how heavy would the A380 fuselage be versus a modern concept - be that CFRP or Al-li. I've reason to be believe that GLARE is competitive performance wise, but prohibitive cost wise vs the alternatives. Which would mean a new wing is not carrying around a millstone of heavy old technology fuselage.

Note also, Airbus have patented a downward turning moveable wingtip - which would be very suited to the VLA nature of the A380.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:21 pm

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 56):
when it comes to the NEO, would it be prohibitively expensive to redesign the wing, optimising it for the -800? Or is this already being discussed regarding the NEO?
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 57):
Its Matt's favourite topic; he'll be able to go into it in much more detail.

Ha it has been a hobbyhorse for me.

My simple hypothesis is that a new wing for the A380 would cost about as much as the 777X program (which also has a new emepennage and 2 stretches), but would benefit the A380 much more than the 777.

I suspect that a new wing - perhaps with new landing gear as well - could allow the A380 to leapfrog the 777 in efficiency and make it the plane it was always meant to be. For further reading just google "a380x" and/or "a380nwo."

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 57):
I suppose the question for a new wing is - is how heavy would the A380 fuselage be versus a modern concept - be that CFRP or Al-li.

Not just the Al-Li, also the fuselage form. The -800's fuselage is unusually stubby - as anyone can see. For its size, a 10-6 layout might be more optimal.

But the question isn't necessarily whether a clean sheet would be a lot better than a rewing, but whether a rewing would save Airbus enough development cost to justify a less optimal plane. I'm agnostic about that.

What I'm more willing to argue is that the VLA sector - anything bigger than a 777-9, say - is a potential goldmine that Airbus is sitting on with nothing to show right now. The 777-9 will be a decent plane but it's a suboptimal compromise as well and would be vulnerable to a really well-executed A380NWO/X or clean sheet VLA.

Nobody is publicly discussing a rewing or successor (seriously nobody except me), but surely Airbus is looking at it internally.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:35 pm

I have to admit, while at the start I was very much for fuse stretch only, I am coming around to a re-wing.

The benefits of:

(1) Pushing up the aspect ratio with use of moveable wingtips
(2) Carbon spars thinning the wing
(3) Resizing the wing to fuselage and thus tail volume ratio

are really tempting.

With regards the fuselage, I wouldn't change the cross section (too costly), but stretch it a bit to improve fineness ratio (the structure should already be good for the stretch).


I believe Airbus can make the A380 work by making focusing on nominal CASM. But it needs to be a step-change from the performance curve of the twins (787, A350 and 77X) and not merely an extrapolation of that curve. If that means a bigger fuselage that seats 800 passengers - so be it.

If Airline 1 offers a ticket from A to B, with 2 flights a day, at $X and airline 2 offers a ticket from A to B, with 1 flight a day and at $X/1.5 --- most people leisure travel will vote with their wallet/purse and will go with airline 2. Much business travel (over long/ultralong distance) is moving the same way too. I think frequency is starting to become over-rated - particularly if the likes of EK makes the hub stop-over a mini-destination in itself.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:47 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 59):

I have to admit, while at the start I was very much for fuse stretch only, I am coming around to a re-wing.

  glad to have, if not company, then at least one more person who doesn't think this discussion is off-limits. That's what makes the forum fun... no ideas out of bounds, hopefully.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 59):
With regards the fuselage, I wouldn't change the cross section (too costly)

Yeah I wouldn't suggest changing the cross section - only a clean sheet successor would explore the 10-6 or other configuration. The current fuse isn't optimal for ~500 seats but it's still more efficient than any other plane and would be more efficient if stretched.

I don't think the stretch option is the way to go because I suspect that game-changing efficiency could come at ~current A380 size. But that technical issue isn't my expertise, maybe the stretch could deliver.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 59):
If Airline 1 offers a ticket from A to B, with 2 flights a day, at $X and airline 2 offers a ticket from A to B, with 1 flight a day and at $X/1.5 --- most people leisure travel will vote with their wallet/purse and will go with airline 2.

So I've always argued. Route fragmentation is the sexy new trend but, as with all sexy new trends, it's usually far overstated. EK has proven that economies of scale can still create a value proposition over a hub; a step change in efficiency could work a similar effect on TPAC routes, for example.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:48 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):
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."

You know, as we all do, its not based on a calendar and this reply comes across as a churlish with your "well its been 20 years" comment. Enzo gave 20 years as a timeframe, a rough estimate of when it becomes reasonable to expect a re-engine of an airframe.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):
(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.

They also have to take into consideration when an engine will be available to give the desired gains. No point putting a RR XWB trent on the 380 which is half a generation behind the GE9X on the 777X. If the rumoured advance is the way to go, they need to wait for it.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 48):
before taking cargo and frequency's impact on RASM into account.

Don't forget on the longer routes the 380 can carry as much cargo as the 777, i.e not alot. It can also carry some cargo which will be the higher yielding cargo, and with cargo yields in the toilet recently and only going to stay there with the glut of belly space coming onto the market, cargo will become less important. Whilst we are talking about RASM, don't forget the premium the 388 commands over other types and the high amount of premium seating that can be fitted into the 380 to boost the yield. If there is one thing I have learnt on a.net, premium seats is where its at.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24850
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:55 pm

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.

And if he can't hold premium pricing as being suggested in:

Sir Tim Clark: 'The Good Old Days' Are Over (by dubaiamman243 Jun 12 2016 in Civil Aviation)

the calculus shifts.
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
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:37 pm

reply 56 (and others
If Airbus did design the wing with the -900 in mind and they decide that they will never build it, when it comes to the NEO, would it be prohibitively expensive to redesign the wing, optimising it for the -800? Or is this already being discussed regarding the NEO?

The -900 wing was to be a beefed up version of the -800 wing you see today.It also was to double up as the Cargo variant wing (which never happened).One wing set was actually made and I guess resides at Airbus.

But (sadly) I can't join the 'party'! Too much has been spent on the 380 project already.We can all (now) pretty much see the market size for the aircraft. (circa 300 copies per 10yr sales cycle). So they will spend as little as possibly frankly/sadly. Think of it as a 330 NEO - or indeed a 320 NEO program.

Timing.
Right now Airbus have 2 big NEO projects on and the A350-1000 project (not sure about the 2000 myself).They have more that enough on their plate for the next 24 months.But 2018...Suddenly there is a 'hole'.That looks (to me) the logical time. With a roll out 2020/1.This also fits exactly with the RR 'Advance' time plan as stated by RR. Could be 100% wrong of course -but it looks logical.Also a far better timing for A380 replacement market anyway.
 
j1960amme
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:35 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:43 pm

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 61):
Whilst we are talking about RASM, don't forget the premium the 388 commands over other types and the high amount of premium seating that can be fitted into the 380 to boost the yield. If there is one thing I have learnt on a.net, premium seats is where its at.

Yet on another threat, Tim Clark just announced quite clearly and firmly that premium seats are increasingly NOT "where it's at"--that economy and Y+ and maybe premium economy are "where it's at". If TC is correct--and *I* am certainly going to assume that he is--then any "premium" that the A388 commands over other a/c types due to more spacious seating is likely to be eliminated altogether as the inexorable drive to increase seat count per airframe renders the premium-heavy configurations increasingly obsolete.

== J1960amme
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:59 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 41):
Yes, I do but not that I can post

Ah! Fooled again. Not surprised.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 44):
779 seat counts show almost a 14% increase from the 77W. Even Boeing only shows ~7% increase in their typical numbers.

We are talking about emirates right? The Leeham analysis says 344 seats in a 77W but EK fit 360 in its 3-class configuration of the 77W. I think 395 is a low estimate of how many seats EK will put in a 779 once you consider one less A door, aft seat re-configuration, 2.6m stretch, and other adjustments.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 44):
it completely ignores the fact that it is total profit that matters

So profit including cargo revenue where the 77X has a crazy large advantage? You're right it does.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
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.

Absolutely.

Quoting parapente (Reply 50):
Note RR pays this bill not Airbus.The engine has to be in the 787/350 thrust range so will clearly have other uses.

Airbus will have to pay the certification and flight testing costs. NEOs aren't free just look at the Billion dollar A320neo Airbus cost.

However, your point is valid - and I will take it one step further: Barring a major A380 redesign/investment I believe that an A380 will Need to have other uses for it to come into being. The niche is just to small to warrant a full redesign for just one aircraft.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 52):
Odd then that the A380 has sold 3.5 times as many frames in the 2 years since the 77X launch than it did in the 2 years prior.

Just to be clear you are using recent sales history of the A380 as an example of something positive?

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 59):
I think frequency is starting to become over-rated - particularly if the likes of EK makes the hub stop-over a mini-destination in itself.
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 60):
Route fragmentation is the sexy new trend but, as with all sexy new trends, it's usually far overstated.

On sub-8 hour flights I disagree. However, on the true long haul flights where the A380 is at its best I do think that frequency matters much less. Also, on these long haul flights there tend to be typical departure times that work best (at their source not at DXB which appears to be one of the only places where time doesn't matter) and that favors a very large aircraft as well. This is why I do believe that the A380 will have a long future operating to the Americas and Australia.

Quoting parapente (Reply 64):
With a roll out 2020/1.

Multiple executives have now said 2025 as the more likely EIS. I tend to believe them. There just isn't a good enough and available engine to match the 77X in that time frame and many on this thread seem to think that airlines will buy the A380ceo as it is anyway. Plus if you really look at it I only see about 25 A380s that need replacing by 2024 and 5 are already being proposed to SQ (too late for neo) and the other 20 (EK) could have their leases extended or A380ceo's purchased anyway. So why rush?

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 61):
Don't forget on the longer routes the 380 can carry as much cargo as the 777, i.e not alot

I would be interested to hear what you qualify as 'longer routes'. On ultra long haul I agree there is not much cargo opportunities but if you look at the payload range chart for the 77W acaps doc it can take it MZFW out beyond 5,500nm. Now if we consider normal payload densities coupled with normal passenger load at its MTOW that still leaves a lot of room for some very profitable cargo on even 12+ hour missions.

tortugamon
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:12 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
On sub-8 hour flights I disagree.

If you'd said sub 5 hrs, I'd agree with you completely.

8? Hmmm. Not sure.

But agree with the general point - somewhere in between those there is definitely a big change in the importance of frequency vs. cost.


Perhaps even, that 5-8 hrs will be influenced by what class you travel in.
8 hrs in economy and I'd say the average traveller is pretty tired and won't be doing much the rest of the day anyway. 8 hrs in business? Yeah, you'd probably have got a nap or are well rested and be OK after a quick freshen in the destination hotel/house then out and functioning for the rest of the day.
5 hrs in economy and I'd think most would be up for fitting a bit more into their day.

But then again - if its a 5 hr sector, how many can you fit into a day? 3? 8 its definitely going to be 2 only.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:08 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
Ah! Fooled again. Not surprised.

So you are saying that no-one is allowed to post anything unless it is supported with linked evidence, even if they clearly state that it is opinion or hearsay? Genius idea.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
We are talking about emirates right? The Leeham analysis says 344 seats in a 77W but EK fit 360 in its 3-class configuration of the 77W. I think 395 is a low estimate of how many seats EK will put in a 779 once you consider one less A door, aft seat re-configuration, 2.6m stretch, and other adjustments.

But the Leeham analysis admits that it is going from 9-abreast to 10-abreast and not using the same size seats. Given that EK are already 10-abreast on the 77W, it makes far more sense to stick with the Boeing numbers for relative seating capacity.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 63):
Nonetheless, even paltry cargo yields are highly profitable
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
So profit including cargo revenue where the 77X has a crazy large advantage? You're right it does.

You both keep claiming that cargo is highly profitable or a large advantage. Care to show us some evidence to support those assertions? Global cargo load factors are now hovering around the 40% mark (per IATA reports). At those load factors, no airline would be able to charge rates that could make anything more than paltry profits. Just take a look at the annual reports from just about any major airline from the last few years - I can't remember seeing a single one that was not very negative about how badly cargo is performing.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 63):
the marginal cost of boarding cargo is mostly fuel

No it's not. Fuel is currently a very small part of the cost base.

Take a look at EK, for example. Last year they averaged ~$1200 revenue per tonne per trip for cargo. Their annual report shows a profit margin of 9.8%, and clearly states that cargo is under-performing compared to passengers. But lets assume that margins on cargo are the same.

That would make EKs cargo costs at least $1050 per tonne. At current fuel prices, that tonne of cargo would need to burn more than 1100kg of fuel per trip, for fuel to be just half of the total costs. Even in previous generation aircraft, the marginal fuel burn for a 10 hour mission was only around a quarter of that.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
Just to be clear you are using recent sales history of the A380 as an example of something positive?

No, I am using recent sales history to challenge a claim. That much ought to already be clear if you actually read the post.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
that still leaves a lot of room for some very profitable cargo on even 12+ hour missions.

Yes, a lot of room that most airlines are currently struggling to even half fill with marginally profitable cargo.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27317
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:13 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
I think 395 is a low estimate of how many seats EK will put in a 779 once you consider one less A door, aft seat re-configuration, 2.6m stretch, and other adjustments.

EK have already announced the 777-9 will seat 440 in two classes: [49J | 391Y]
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
EK have already announced the 777-9 will seat 440 in two classes: [49J | 391Y]

True but the other compared configurations are 3-class.

If we look at 2-class configs, the 779 will only provide 3% more seats than the current EK 2-class 77W configuration. It would also be ~71% of the current EK A380 2-class configuration, not 75% as used in the article. Probably even less than that in the likely post-review A380 configurations they will be using by the time they get their 779s.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1913
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
EK have already announced the 777-9 will seat 440 in two classes: [49J | 391Y]

Which is only a 13 seat increase on their current 2 class 77W. That is one row if J seats and 6 Y seats, so one and a half rows of seats for EK at least in their 2 class 77W. I wonder if they will add one more row J seats in their three class 779 and if it will also add only 6 more Y seats.


Edited to clarify.

[Edited 2016-06-13 11:39:33]
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:05 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
On sub-8 hour flights I disagree. However, on the true long haul flights where the A380 is at its best I do think that frequency matters much less. Also, on these long haul flights there tend to be typical departure times that work best (at their source not at DXB which appears to be one of the only places where time doesn't matter) and that favors a very large aircraft as well. This is why I do believe that the A380 will have a long future operating to the Americas and Australia.

As so many other things in life ... it all depends.Nothing in this game matters in and by itself without relation to the model of operation. In the case of EK frequency is not very important as their model does favor size. And only a very little proportion of their pax are having DBX as their final destination. More slots in DBX would most certainly not be used to add more frequency to destinations where capacity can be increased by increasing size. Then these extra slots will be used to open more destinations.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:23 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 67):
If you'd said sub 5 hrs, I'd agree with you completely. 8? Hmmm. Not sure.
But agree with the general point - somewhere in between those there is definitely a big change in the importance of frequency vs. cost.

Well if you look at LHR-JFK I would say frequency is very important and that is over 7 hours. I think there are a decent amount of TATL markets where frequency and timing matter. But overall we agree its just a matter of where you draw the line and even then I think it depends on the market and the type of traveler which you implied.

The vast majority of EK flights are this shorter length where there is a frequency advantage and a cost advantage by not operating the A380 if the 77X can beat its cost economics while carrying relevant cargo.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 68):
So you are saying that no-one is allowed to post anything unless it is supported with linked evidence, even if they clearly state that it is opinion or hearsay? Genius idea.

Nope not at all. Just clarifying that you aren't pulling this 'information' from any variable source. And now I know that we have to consider the quality of the posters rumor mill where some posters have shown to be very credible. Still others have posted things like: my rumormill says the A380neo will be launched within 6-months so we just have to consider the source of the rumor.

Quoting abba (Reply 74):
In the case of EK frequency is not very important as their model does favor size.

Can you help me to explain why you think so?

On regional flights I see a ton of 777 frequencies:
IKA-4x per Day
RUH-3x per Day
DOH-7x per Day

On longer flights I also see a bunch of 777 frequencies:
DEL-4x per Day
BKK-3 of 8 flights per day.

And even very long flights like BOS and SEA which are double daily 777s. This is just to name a few that I knew but I am sure there are dozens more. EK operates ~4 separate banks of flights, last I knew, so for some destinations there will need to be multiple frequencies.

tortugamon
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:35 pm

Ahh the new site!Feels as big as an A380 (ie unnecessarily big;-).Still you know its home as there must always be an A380 bashing thread!Just like the new site itself-answering a question that was never asked!!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24850
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:00 am

parapente wrote:
Ahh the new site!Feels as big as an A380 (ie unnecessarily big;-).Still you know its home as there must always be an A380 bashing thread!Just like the new site itself-answering a question that was never asked!!

Ahh the same old posters opening threads they don't want anyone else posting in so they can post that they don't want anyone else posintg.

Cheer up, go find yourself a nice profile picture and have some fun for a change.

Hmm, seems the new site isn't supporting {butthead}, what a shame...
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
spudh
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:11 am

parapente wrote:
Ahh the new site!Feels as big as an A380 (ie unnecessarily big;-).Still you know its home as there must always be an A380 bashing thread!Just like the new site itself-answering a question that was never asked!!

Ah yes, the new white background is going to do a good job of increasing battery drain.

Is that parasitic or induced drag?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:16 pm

speedbored wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
We should lump this speedbored thesis with his "unit costs don't influence profit" thesis under heading, "Crazy things speedbored said to disagree with matt6461."

Again, I have never said that either.


You did though. From Part 1 of this thread:

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 46):
While simple ordinal CASM rankings aren't everything, it turns out that unit cost efficiency is - surprise! - highly relevant to the profit headline you rightly - duh - emphasize.

But it isn't. No airline bases their decision making, or calculates likely profits, via CASM. They use trip costs.


I said "unit cost efficiency is highly relevant to profits," you said, "But it isn't." Care to explain?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:26 pm

....none of which has stopped EK being the biggest purchaser of A380's.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:24 pm

As the new forum software offers the ability to move posts to another discussion, I created a new thread where we can continue the belly cargo discussion:

See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1335479
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4189
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:02 am

So how is the stagnation doing today? ;-)
Some new information (correct me if I am wrong) in this article:
- DORIC is promoting intensively the first A380s coming back after leasing expires (SQ and EK-airframes
- reduced minimum leasing period: 5 years (instead of 10)
- leasing rate 40% lower than leasing rate for new airframes, they say 0.5 Mio. US$ per month
- in discussion with several potential operators
- “nobody wants to be the first” ;-)
Source: http://www.aero.de/news-24377/Doric-Nie ... -sein.html
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4189
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:11 am

... ah, forgot another piece of information (is it no longer possible to edit a message within the first 30 minutes?):
- DORIC's CEO says some airlines would rather buy used A380s. DORIC, however, think they will get more profit by signing new leasing contract(s)

Who might want to buy second-hand A380s? Pro BA bly a large airline... ;-)
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:14 am

N14AZ wrote:
So how is the stagnation doing today?


Funny I was just going to post about this. English story here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation ... pl3sy.html

I can't tell if your question is sarcastic though? A very low lease rate for a 10yo frame is completely consistent with stagnation: it means the lessor recognizes that demand is low. And this discount is just the opening offer; we'll see what the lease price is once a deal is finally signed (well maybe we won't but hopefully we will).

John Leahy and Leeham foresaw this low lease rate for used A380's, predicting it will fall even lower than Doric's opening offer:

A seven year old A380 would have a monthly lease of around $1m, according to CV, which is the rate of a five year old 777-300ER according to the guide. A new Boeing 777-300ER would be leasing for $1.35m, so a 10 year old A380 would be below that, probably at around 75% of the lease rate of a new 777-300ER (CV’s guide does not go beyond 2007, the EIS year of the A380, so we estimated the figure).

https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/14/inter ... g-forward/

A 7yo, 60% bigger plane for the price of a 5yo smaller plane? That's going to make things work for some airlines (BA especially), but it doesn't say anything good about the A380's value proposition.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:19 am

Those lease rates are not unique though, we are seeing A330s being leased on a 6-year basis.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
brindabella
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: RE: IATA: A380 Stagnation Part 2

Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:36 pm

[quote="Ncfc99"]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.

Apologies if this has already been discussed - haven't read all posts yet.
However the original Leeham post mis-computed the 779 burn; from memory the table gave the figure of 120.5. It was corrected later - you can work it out by using the projected 10% SFC improvement with the GEX against the GE90-115, and factoring the extra seat-count.
If you are looking-at the original table, the 120.5 figure then corrects to 105 or so, IIRC.
cheers Bill
Billy

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