Will we ever see an Airbus 380 stretch ?

Mortyman · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:03 am

Will we ever see an Airbus 380 stretch ?

Airbus 380-900 or Airbus 380-1000 ?

I know that it's not looking good at the moment, but has Airbus put the plans in the dust bin completly ?

ChrisKen · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:06 am

Unlikely unless the market shifts towards requiring bigger aircraft again.

Gemuser · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:19 am

There are several threads on this site about the proposed A380-900, which the current aircraft is the basis. There is also the SUH version proposal which is larger again.

Gemuser

euroflyer · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:25 am

Given that not a single airline currently operating the A380, is using it at its maximum pax capacity, the question of a stretch version is void. And even if an extended range is required, that will not call for a stretch, but primarly application of the standard "LR" embodiements (ie, fuel tank and wing optimisation)

Dutchy · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:27 am

Nobody knows, but it doesn't look good. If ever, then this decision will be taken in the 2022-2023 timeframe. Needs new engines and wing tweak and additional 200odd seats. At this moment there are hardly any routes that can take the A380, why would it be better with 700odd seats in 3 class config? The CSAM should be significantly lowered then the 777-9 to justify the extra risk of filling those extra seats with lower ticket prices.

uta999 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:30 am

The trouble is, there are so few routes and airlines that can support an aircraft this size that are not state funded. Added to this are the big twins which are taking all the orders from the A380. Even some of them are not selling at all. Perhaps AB got is wrong and should have made the bigger A380-900 first. Then it would not have been hijacked by the 77W/333/788/789.

In practice, airlines are replacing their old 744 with the 789, so bigger is not the way it is going. Even the 777-X might fail miserably too.

RJMAZ · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:02 am

Doubtful.

The problem is new engines will add 10-15% extra range to the A380-800 which isn't needed.

So a stretch would definitely be required to go with the new engines to make it remotely close to being optimised.

The problem is the A380 is already very big. Making it bigger will not help.

If we do see a new A380NEO it will be a straight simple stretch with new engines. Maximum takeoff weight will probably not increase. So any extra engineering or strengthening will not be required. The aircraft will simply fill up with less fuel to equal the weight of the stretch. So the stretch will probably not have a payload increase by weight only by volume. This will be fine for emirates as they run a very low density.

Planeflyer · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:03 am

Suggest we have too many a380 threads on the same old topics.

In the military forum there is one thread that covers f35 news. Why not do the same for the 380?

LewisNEO · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:21 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Suggest we have too many a380 threads on the same old topics.

In the military forum there is one thread that covers f35 news. Why not do the same for the 380?

I agree. There are many new threads started without checking if there are still open threads about the same subject, for example: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1357419&p=19833849&hilit=a380+stretch#p19833849

TC957 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:54 am

If they did do an A380-900, I can only see EK buying them the way things are now.
But if Airbus could do something like an " A380Lite " the Chinese big 3 may be interested.

DarkSnowyNight · Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:04 am

TC957 wrote:
If they did do an A380-900, I can only see EK buying them the way things are now.
But if Airbus could do something like an " A380Lite " the Chinese big 3 may be interested.

EK would undoubtedly show the most interest. But CX would also be a viable contender as well. The 388 was too small compared to the 77W and 779 to show a real RASM advantage. But a 389 would probably work very well for them in this regard. They operate not only from, but to a lot of slot constrained airfields (traditional definitions of this notwithstanding).

On a personal note, I would like to see this. I feel very strongly about my signature. And a 389 is about what it take for BCA to push out a 77K.

uta999 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:38 am

Ideally, an A380 that could fly LHR-SYD/MEL or AKL non-stop in both directions all year round. The problem is AB would only sell 12.

DFW17L · Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:42 pm

I enjoy watching an A380 land/depart. So much wing not being used to its fullest potential. I would very much like to see a -900.

IAmGaroott · Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:03 pm

We’ll probably see a freighter conversion before a stretch and even that seems doubtful.

Revelation · Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:12 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Will we ever see an Airbus 380 stretch ?

Airbus 380-900 or Airbus 380-1000 ?

I know that it's not looking good at the moment, but has Airbus put the plans in the dust bin completly ?

I don't know that I'd make a reference to the dust bin, but one year ago at Paris Airbus was offering 13% lower cost per set ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#A380plus ) which did not generate customer interest.

Even EK didn't take them up on it ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... s-continue ) and since then Airbus has ramped down production heading for 6 per year whilst taking some unsavory but digestible losses.

I think the most likely outcome is that a post-Enders CEO decides on a change of diet sooner rather than later and we never see an A380 stretch.

c933103 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:54 pm

euroflyer wrote:
Given that not a single airline currently operating the A380, is using it at its maximum pax capacity, the question of a stretch version is void. And even if an extended range is required, that will not call for a stretch, but primarly application of the standard "LR" embodiements (ie, fuel tank and wing optimisation)

Barely anyone use 77L at its maximum capacity but 77W still sell well

c933103 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
Will we ever see an Airbus 380 stretch ?

Airbus 380-900 or Airbus 380-1000 ?

I know that it's not looking good at the moment, but has Airbus put the plans in the dust bin completly ?

I don't know that I'd make a reference to the dust bin, but one year ago at Paris Airbus was offering 13% lower cost per set ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#A380plus ) which did not generate customer interest.

Even EK didn't take them up on it ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... s-continue ) and since then Airbus has ramped down production heading for 6 per year whilst taking some unsavory but digestible losses.

I think the most likely outcome is that a post-Enders CEO decides on a change of diet sooner rather than later and we never see an A380 stretch.

Except the Plus was just mostly interior redesign with extra winglet that doesn't really offer improvement one would expect from a refresh on a decade-old design

NZ321 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:58 pm

I think this topic is directly related to the regulatory environment. If government and environment policy starts to curb current quite unlimited expansion of airports and opening of new airports then yes we could indeed see the demand for this aircraft. Otherwise I think it is fanciful.

chunhimlai · Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:30 pm

It would be the after of the one of the following optional
A. BER main terminal opening
B. AI privatisation success
C. Air Koryo start flight to USA
D. Ragnarök
E. the Son of Man's return
F. The day of Qiyamah
G. The coming of Maitreya

IAmGaroott · Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:38 pm

chunhimlai wrote:
It would be the after of the one of the following optional
A. BER main terminal opening
B. AI privatisation success
C. Air Koryo start flight to USA
D. Ragnarök
E. the Son of Man's return
F. The day of Qiyamah
G. The coming of Maitreya

H. The restart of a defunct airline actually being successful
I. 747-8I receiving more orders
J. Tri-jets coming back
K. Reopening of the 757 production line
:duck:

ElroyJetson · Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:05 pm

IAmGaroott wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
It would be the after of the one of the following optional
A. BER main terminal opening
B. AI privatisation success
C. Air Koryo start flight to USA
D. Ragnarök
E. the Son of Man's return
F. The day of Qiyamah
G. The coming of Maitreya

H. The restart of a defunct airline actually being successful
I. 747-8I receiving more orders
J. Tri-jets coming back
K. Reopening of the 757 prodution line

A. Good meals in coach flying domestic.

B. DTW fans agreeing DL treats them like superstars!

C. BA and Airbus geeks admitting the other guys "make really good planes."

D. Lavs that feel too open and spacious.

Deeso · Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:52 pm

Quite unlikely unless the market landscape changes radically, thing I don't see possibly happening before the 2030's decade and beyond.
A full second generation A380 (A380-900neo with new engines and more CFRP) would be a CASM beast, no doubt about that; but that wouldn't solve other problems such as huge turnaround times and challenging yields.

Western727 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:06 pm

In addition to the above responses, is being a quad an inherent liability for the 380? We know what happened to the 340 & 747, too, with scant orders for the 345/6 and 748, in favor of the 330/neo, 350, 777 and 787.

777PHX · Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:22 pm

I highly doubt it. Considering several first tier airlines have stated they have trouble finding viable routes to operate their small fleets of current A380s on, I can't believe anyone would want a larger one, even EK.

zakuivcustom · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:22 pm

IAmGaroott wrote:
chunhimlai wrote:
It would be the after of the one of the following optional
A. BER main terminal opening
B. AI privatisation success
C. Air Koryo start flight to USA
D. Ragnarök
E. the Son of Man's return
F. The day of Qiyamah
G. The coming of Maitreya

H. The restart of a defunct airline actually being successful
I. 747-8I receiving more orders
J. Tri-jets coming back
K. Reopening of the 757 production line

L. When they expand EXT to an airport with 6 runways :duck:

M. When Alitalia actually make money in any of the fiscal year.

On topic, though, do we really need another monthly "Will we ever see an A380 stretch/A380neo/A380ULRXXWB" thread?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
TC957 wrote:
If they did do an A380-900, I can only see EK buying them the way things are now.
But if Airbus could do something like an " A380Lite " the Chinese big 3 may be interested.

EK would undoubtedly show the most interest. But CX would also be a viable contender as well. The 388 was too small compared to the 77W and 779 to show a real RASM advantage. But a 389 would probably work very well for them in this regard. They operate not only from, but to a lot of slot constrained airfields (traditional definitions of this notwithstanding).

On a personal note, I would like to see this. I feel very strongly about my signature. And a 389 is about what it take for BCA to push out a 77K.

Umm...although CX management had made quite a few blunders the past few years or so, not buying A380 is one of the few smart decision they made in retrospect. Again, other than EK, how many airlines are looking to get additional A380s? Zero.

BTW, CZ do already have A380s, and what use is there for A380Lite? Don't tell me Chinese domestic routes, CZ learned their lesson, hard, that you simply can't make money with A380 that way.

Taxi645 · Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:05 pm

A possible A380-850:

- Mini stretch to lower CASM and together with landing gear reconfiguration allowing an extra row of containers.
- Ultrafan engines (enabling tremendous fuel load saving for the same range, enabling a weight saving loop of unprecedented scale). Trust requirement for 510T allows it to be shared with A330 successor.
- MTOW lowered to 510 tons. Enabling increased aspect ratio within the 80m box and a reduced landing gear weight and size (the latter in combination with a minor stretch enabling much more cargo volume).
- New CFRP wings with much higher aspect ratio at more or less equal wingloading (further increased by A380plus style winglets) resulting in a considerable induced drag reduction.
- Reduction in empennage size and nacelle length further lowering parasitic drag on top of wing surface reduction.
- Game changing CASM drop which might or might not allow these to be filled by more airlines and change the aviation landscape.

I don't know if it will work. I'm not technically skilled enough to make a proper judgement, but if they pull it off I reckon it will take quite a few people by surprise.

Western727 wrote:
In addition to the above responses, is being a quad an inherent liability for the 380? We know what happened to the 340 & 747, too, with scant orders for the 345/6 and 748, in favor of the 330/neo, 350, 777 and 787.

Actually in a few years being a quad may actually be an advantage to the A380 in the right configuration. The A350 and 777x won't be able to easily take on the massive by-pass ratios of Ultra-fan generation engines, where as a lighter weight A380 (although in itself of course an expensive endeavour) will be able to roughly keep it's current nacelle diameter even with Ultra-fan bypass ratios.

Slug71 · Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:16 am

I think theres a good chance there will be a stretch. But who knows if it will be as long as the -900 was supposed to be.
But that decision will likely not come until 2025ish.

I still think we'll see an improved Plus "launch" though. Possibly with the Trent 7000 and GENx.

parapente · Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:27 am

Really? I would suggest that there is zero chance of a stretch.Airbus is a business and there is no business case whatsoever so clearly it won't happen.
They have been asked for a re engine by Emirates.They have received a flat 'no' for exactly the same reason - the investment would not yield a profitable return.And that is with a brand new off the shelf 'bleed' engine being ready and waiting -the T7000 as stated above.
They have offered a very clever repackaging of the interior offering more seating in every class level-but no takers.Also a double wing improvement (re-twist and blended winglets),but again no takers.
One imagines Emirates may request one more replacement order in the future but that's it I'm afraid.
But on the bright side it's a fantastic aircaft to fly on (the best imho) and it's gonna be around for a couple of decades,so I'm happy!
A business loss to Airbus but a consumer gain for us!

PlymSpotter · Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:43 pm

My view is that, at some point in the future (well beyond 15 years), there will be a requirement for an ultra-VLA. The growth of middle classes in developing nations is already changing the dynamic of air travel in these markets and frequency increases, especially on longer sectors involving congested airports, will only have so much scope.

I think the interesting discussion is around what will be achieved quicker; the demand for an ultra-VLA, or the advancement in alternate / electric propulsion of aircraft, which could completely change the entire air travel dynamic as we know it today.

Antarius · Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:13 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
My view is that, at some point in the future (well beyond 15 years), there will be a requirement for an ultra-VLA. The growth of middle classes in developing nations is already changing the dynamic of air travel in these markets and frequency increases, especially on longer sectors involving congested airports, will only have so much scope.

I think the interesting discussion is around what will be achieved quicker; the demand for an ultra-VLA, or the advancement in alternate / electric propulsion of aircraft, which could completely change the entire air travel dynamic as we know it today.

Even if this does happen, by 2030 something, the a380 will be 35 years old/past EIS. A a380 stretch at that time will sell about as well as the 748i.

Airbus swung and missed on this one.

Western727 · Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:44 pm

Taxi645 wrote:

Western727 wrote:
In addition to the above responses, is being a quad an inherent liability for the 380? We know what happened to the 340 & 747, too, with scant orders for the 345/6 and 748, in favor of the 330/neo, 350, 777 and 787.

Actually in a few years being a quad may actually be an advantage to the A380 in the right configuration. The A350 and 777x won't be able to easily take on the massive by-pass ratios of Ultra-fan generation engines, where as a lighter weight A380 (although in itself of course an expensive endeavour) will be able to roughly keep it's current nacelle diameter even with Ultra-fan bypass ratios.

I'm genuinely curious about this assertion. If a lighter weight 380 can roughly keep its current nacelle diameter, even with ultra-fan bypass ratio engines, then why couldn't the 350 and 777x do the same (if theoretically re-engined, that is)? That would then go back to the original question: is being a quad an inherent liability for the 380? I mean, we all know that four engines generally cost more to operate on an ASM basis, which (largely) spelled the end of the 342/3/5/6 and the 744/8 as pax aircraft.

PlymSpotter · Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:24 pm

Antarius wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
My view is that, at some point in the future (well beyond 15 years), there will be a requirement for an ultra-VLA. The growth of middle classes in developing nations is already changing the dynamic of air travel in these markets and frequency increases, especially on longer sectors involving congested airports, will only have so much scope.

I think the interesting discussion is around what will be achieved quicker; the demand for an ultra-VLA, or the advancement in alternate / electric propulsion of aircraft, which could completely change the entire air travel dynamic as we know it today.

Even if this does happen, by 2030 something, the a380 will be 35 years old/past EIS. A a380 stretch at that time will sell about as well as the 748i.

Airbus swung and missed on this one.

I specifically didn't mention the A380 being the base for ultra-VLA, because of the time which would have passed. Who knows what will have been developed by then.

However, to play Devil's advocate, look at the 737 - 50 years of service and still going strong with what is essentially the same original cross-section. The same expectations could be projected onto the A380.

It will be interesting to watch new developments.

ewt340 · Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:16 pm

As much as I love A380, the answer would be hell no.

The only thing that could save A380 is not a stretched version, it's a twin version.

Unless they could get an extremely powerful engines that could power the frame with only 2 engines. A380 would be dead in the future. Let alone the stretched version.

Taxi645 · Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:43 pm

Western727 wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:

Western727 wrote:
In addition to the above responses, is being a quad an inherent liability for the 380? We know what happened to the 340 & 747, too, with scant orders for the 345/6 and 748, in favor of the 330/neo, 350, 777 and 787.

Actually in a few years being a quad may actually be an advantage to the A380 in the right configuration. The A350 and 777x won't be able to easily take on the massive by-pass ratios of Ultra-fan generation engines, where as a lighter weight A380 (although in itself of course an expensive endeavour) will be able to roughly keep it's current nacelle diameter even with Ultra-fan bypass ratios.

I'm genuinely curious about this assertion. If a lighter weight 380 can roughly keep its current nacelle diameter, even with ultra-fan bypass ratio engines, then why couldn't the 350 and 777x do the same (if theoretically re-engined, that is)?

Because the A350 and 777x are not in the same situation as the A380. They are optimized designs that will have some room for further imrpovement but not anywhere near as much as the A380 which is both older and has built in capability for much larger variants which it will never need, confined in an inefficient 80m wingspan restriction. Normally making a plane lighter is a prohibitively expensive proces. However the fuel weight saving of an ultrafan type engine would provide an unique opportunity with the A380 to adress multiple issues.

- Too heavy for it's wingspan
- Old generation engines
- Relatively large empennage
- Relatively low composite content in the wings
- Heavy and large MLG also compromising cargo space
- Relatively stubby, leading to fuselage ineffciencies (which is otherwise, due the double decker design, extremely good)
- Never used it's floor space efficiently.

These are all issues the A350 and 777x don't have. Sure you could invest heavily to modify the A350 and 777x to accept those extreme by-pass ratio's, but with the A380 such an investment would provide much more synergy effects because of the above.

Now making all these changes to the A380 will be very expensive, I reckon more than half of a new program. On the other hand the CASM reduction would be extreme, down to levels we have never seen before. The question is, which some here seem to be able to answer very easiliy without providing anyback up, will the CASM reduction be large enough to get these planes filled and selling sufficiently to justify the considerable investment? And would a complete new design actually provide a better business case? I honestly couldn't answer those questions. I do see an exiting opportunity, but these things are a bit too complex to address with simple oneliners.

kjeld0d · Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:03 pm

Only if its very sleepy after a long day...

SC430 · Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:24 pm

It has been six years since any airline other than EK ordered an A380. Why would you ever spend more money to stretch it?

Gasman · Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:50 pm

The current state of play where twins (especially single aisle twins) rule, could not have been predicted and in my view is a reflection of 9/11, the Oil shocks and Global financial crisis of the first decade of this century.

The longer term view is that prior to 2001, airlines were demanding progressively bigger aircraft and had been for the previous 80 years before that. Airport slots are not increasing, yet the travelling population is not getting smaller. The undeniable consequence of those two facts is that bigger aircraft will be required. But maybe not anytime soon.

workhorse · Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:42 pm

The A380 is a child of another era. An era when we believed that, as time passes, countries and people around the world would be closer and closer, with more and more economic, cultural and personal ties across the continents.

Now, we are in an era of trade wars, visa restrictions, spy-mania, xenophobe propaganda in the media etc which means that, as time passes, we will probably see less, not more people flying internatonally. Even the 778/779 and the 351 might become be too big for most airlines in the near future.

The A389 would have a chance in China if it was optimized for short haul (~1 to 5 hours flights) which means that it would have to be a twin with smaller wing and much lighter structure, in other words, it would have to be a completely different airplane.

Matt6461 · Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:52 pm

There are a ton of threads on this topic on A.net. I'd recommend as particularly brilliant this thread: viewtopic.php?t=1384423

I'll just make a few top-line points from that thread:

1. Any stretch will have to be a NEO with at least the following revisions:
.......1a. New engines of Ultrafan-level tech (i.e. high reduction-ratio GTF with BPR of ~15 and OPR of ~70)
.......1b. New empennage (vertical/horizontal stabilizers) that would be much smaller/lighter due to (1) longer lever arm, (2) lower max weight and thrust, and (3) possible CFRP construction of internal structure (current empennage is CFRP on aluminum bones)
.......1c. Large - perhaps unprecedentedly large - winglets to increase effective span.
.
2. Those three essential elements could be combined with additional revisions, depending on cost/benefit tradeoff and feasibility:
........2a. Reclamation of "wasted" tail cone space via (1) a tail-cone cargo compartment or (2) moving the aft bulkhead to add cabin length. This change is enabled by the shrunken empennage, which could move the H-stab and its actuating machinery further aft by up to 20ft. Airbus is already studying this kind of change on the A350; its utility would be far greater on A380, which has ~50ft of empty tailcone.
........2b. Airbus could rebuild wing spars and ribs using CFRP - a step it wasn't ready to do in 2000 but plainly can now. That Airbus had/has a solution to the Al-CFRP interface problem (i.e. plastic ribs and metal skin), shows it can solve one huge impediment to such a change. In addition, Airbus could leverage apparent improvements in GLARE cost and strength to replace some components (i.e. wing bottoms) with GLARE. Again, depends on cost/benefit analysis.
........2c. Airbus could "internally stretch" the A380 similarly to 777X by shaving the sidewalls to enable 11ab (on MD) and 9ab (on UD) - or to add space for premium seats.
........2d. The already-sketched "A380 Plus" revisions would become standard on A380NEO-stretch. Additional cabin refinements could include eliminating one exit on MD and moving one exit to fore of UD, which could enable eliminating forward stairs entirely.

How the economic/fuel characteristics of this design fall out depends a lot on how big effective span can go via winglets.
In a very aggressive scenario, a ~315ft effective span (~40ft winglets with 30k lbs wing weight gain) can feasibly achieve a 50% per-seat reduction in fuel burn, a ~40% reduction in total cost per seat, and ~15% reduction in trip cost even for a 80m stretch.

A less aggressive projection of ~290ft effective span (proportional to 737MAX winglets), along with fewer of the non-essential revisions, gives ~35% per-seat fuel burn reduction.

In either case, a stretch A380-900NEO seems reasonably capable of yielding 30 orders per year. With the most aggressive projections (huge winglets), the -900NEO is a no-brainer IMO. Then we're talking ~twice the capacity of a 777-9 for ~20% more fuel burn. An airline could likely cover the incremental trip cost just by selling space at some premium (i.e. twice the space per pax for a small price premium).

7BOEING7 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:08 am

Matt6461 wrote:
In either case, a stretch A380-900NEO seems reasonably capable of yielding 30 orders per year.

Your points are interesting and well thought out -- your conclusion, not so much.

Matt6461 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:16 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
Your points are interesting and well thought out

Thanks.

7BOEING7 wrote:
your conclusion, not so much.

Care to elaborate?
I admittedly gave little argumentation for my conclusion (more is in the A380NEO thread I linked).
But the basic intuition is there: ~20% higher trip cost for twice as much space (versus 777-9) seems like a no-brainer.
There are several more layers to the argument, including the attractiveness of the 777-9, the effect on trip cost of selling more space instead of more seats, and the effects of price-based market stimulation.
But before diving into those, maybe you could say more.

Revelation · Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:17 am

workhorse wrote:
Now, we are in an era of trade wars, visa restrictions, spy-mania, xenophobe propaganda in the media etc which means that, as time passes, we will probably see less, not more people flying internatonally.

Nice try, but as mentioned above, A380's non-EK orders have stagnated long before these kinds of things have become emergent.

2175301 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:13 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
In either case, a stretch A380-900NEO seems reasonably capable of yielding 30 orders per year.

Your points are interesting and well thought out -- your conclusion, not so much.

Nothing wrong with the 30 per year number.... if you only plan for 5-7 years of production. In reality, I could see a surge of orders for about 150-200 aircraft... But, not much after that.

It's unlikely to be worth the design efforts to develop such a A380X given that it would likely have no more than 300 orders - and perhaps only would have 200 or so.

Modern aircraft in general need to project a market of at least 600 aircraft over 20 years; and more than 1000 (if not 2000+) is clearly preferred.

Have a great day,

IslandRob · Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:23 am

kjeld0d wrote:
Only if its very sleepy after a long day...

This is my favorite reply! -ir

Slash787 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:34 am

Well there are more chances of a MoM than a A380 S MAX.

Matt6461 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:51 am

2175301 wrote:
It's unlikely to be worth the design efforts to develop such a A380X given that it would likely have no more than 300 orders - and perhaps only would have 200 or so.

Just to be clear this isn't an A380X in the sense of a new wing. Just a stretched NEO with winglets and a new empennage. A $3bn budget seems ballpark.

Because there would be so much CASM daylight between this kind of plane and all others, Airbus would be able to price monopolistically to a much greater extent than any other plane currently produced. To project $100mn profit per frame is possible if we use aggressive - though feasible - performance projections. At 30 frames/year, $100mn/frame give $3bn annual program project. Even if you cut that projection in half you can still easily close the business case for $3bn investment.

In short a good VLA would be an unusual plane whose business case would involve unusual numbers.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:08 am

$3 billion wouldn’t come close—double that, at least.

GF

Matt6461 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:13 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
$3 billion wouldn’t come close—double that, at least.

GF

Argument?

I'll grant that $3bn is low but cost should be somewhere south of 777X (~$5bn) and north of A330Neo (~$2bn?).

Figures would vary depending on whether and how many non-essential elements were included.

benjjk · Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:31 am

There won't be significant demand for an aircraft larger than the current A380 for at least 20 years. By that point I would expect a fresh design instead of rehashing the 380.

Gasman · Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:54 am

benjjk wrote:
There won't be significant demand for an aircraft larger than the current A380 for at least 20 years. By that point I would expect a fresh design instead of rehashing the 380.

I completely agree.

I believe the A380 assembly line will be wrapped up in 5-10 years. The existing fleet will get smaller by a process of attrition until the next VLA - my guess made by Boeing - enters service in about 20 years from now.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net