gokmengs
Topic Author
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:24 pm

With the unfortunate (for us aviation nuts not that are not fanboys) drama thats unfolding regarding the Airbus 380, I feel like it started wrong and everything that could go wrong actually did go wrong. If the EIS was on time there would be many frames flying as planned and we don't talk about it much but there would be many 380F's flying for the likes of 5X and FX. Actually for parcel carriers that are not carrying odd sized large loads isn't the 380F a good idea? If everything went according to plan I think the NEO would be right around the corner if not already in service. Basically I like to know others opinion about how the wiring delay changed the fate of the program and if everything went according to plan where would the 380 be? Would we have the 900? Would there be other operators? What are your thoughts. Thanks in advance
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21228
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:01 pm

In short, no one can know, so we will never know.

You may observe that 787 had at least as tumultuous an introduction yet now is selling faster than they can be produced.

I think this shows that even if A380 had a much better introductory phase, fragmentation would still end up undermining it.

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.
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
PolarRoute
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:03 pm

I agree; everything that could go wrond actually did go wrong. The timing, the decisions, the strategy.. and even the craft itself went down the wrong way.

Surely, if it wasn’t for the cancellation of the freighter version, closing the business case for the NEO would have been easier. But in essence the 380 saga came to all this bc it is an oddball that wasn’t optimized around itself. The -800 we now have is a shrink with loads of excessive weight; and we all know how that had worked out in the history of aviation industry.

IMO, it would make for an efficient airliner if it shedded off all the unnecessary weight. But I’m afraid it has come too far to risk the associated cost of doing so. I really hope it comes through, but I suspect airlines’ interest has already been vaporized.
 
gokmengs
Topic Author
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:26 pm

Revelation wrote:
In short, no one can know, so we will never know.

You may observe that 787 had at least as tumultuous an introduction yet now is selling faster than they can be produced.

I think this shows that even if A380 had a much better introductory phase, fragmentation would still end up undermining it.

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


Great point re; 787 EIS woes. I read a lot from you regarding the 380 over the years, and you are mostly (mostly because I wanted it to succeed) on point. I think we can agree a pretty good amount of frames including the freighter version would have been flying, do you think the NEO would have been offered?
PolarRoute wrote:
I agree; everything that could go wrond actually did go wrong. The timing, the decisions, the strategy.. and even the craft itself went down the wrong way.

PolarRoute wrote:
I agree; everything that could go wrond actually did go wrong. The timing, the decisions, the strategy.. and even the craft itself went down the wrong way.

Surely, if it wasn’t for the cancellation of the freighter version, closing the business case for the NEO would have been easier. But in essence the 380 saga came to all this bc it is an oddball that wasn’t optimized around itself. The -800 we now have is a shrink with loads of excessive weight; and we all know how that had worked out in the history of aviation industry.

IMO, it would make for an efficient airliner if it shedded off all the unnecessary weight. But I’m afraid it has come too far to risk the associated cost of doing so. I really hope it comes through, but I suspect airlines’ interest has already been vaporized.


Thats a good point as well maybe they should have offered the 900 first and the CASM would be much better off the bat.
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
Arion640
Posts: 2385
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:30 pm

Revelation wrote:

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?
223 319 320 321 333 346 359 388 733 73G 738 744 752 753 763 764 772 77E 773 77W 788 789 MD83 E145 E175 E195 RJ85 F70 DH8C DH8D AT75

Brexit - It’s time for global Britain.
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:38 pm

gokmengs wrote:
Thats a good point as well maybe they should have offered the 900 first and the CASM would be much better off the bat.


My apologies, I stated vaguely to avoid my post getting eyewateringly long, but should have worded it better.

I think an optimized -800 would have competed better as -900 would have been too big for technology back then to handle the required yield to fill that monster. In other words, yield is going to get hit too hard on a -900, squeezing the space between RASM and CASM to be too risky. And the -900 would also have been restricted by the 80m box just like the current -800 anyway so the operating cost should have been even worse. That's not good on capacity cost, where the A380 suffers the most. An optimized 800 with high AR wing would have made sense concerning the balance between manageable yield and net cost.

Just my 2 cents.

Arion640 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?



A good recipe to turn this into yet another A vs B flamebait

And I don't think his point was to say that either..

*Edited to answer another post
Last edited by PolarRoute on Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
gokmengs
Topic Author
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:45 pm

PolarRoute wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?


A good recipe to turn this into yet another A vs B flamebait

And I don't think his point was to say that either..


You could say the A350 for that matter or any twin engined widebody aircraft, most 787's do operate from a hub. I think frequency plays a role in a world where we were thinking slot restriction and congestion would help play into 380's hand, yet we are talking about EK who is restricted at DXB cancelling remaining 380's (albeit it could be at Airbus's request) confusing right:)
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21228
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:49 pm

gokmengs wrote:
Great point re; 787 EIS woes. I read a lot from you regarding the 380 over the years, and you are mostly (mostly because I wanted it to succeed) on point. I think we can agree a pretty good amount of frames including the freighter version would have been flying, do you think the NEO would have been offered?

Airbus made the point that it would not do a NEO just for EK, it did need more customers to do a NEO, so it would have helped.

Other than the presence of a few potential NEO customers, I don't think we can say it would have made the difference.

I remember posting about a decade ago that the real thing the A380 program needed was a second EK, and one never came along.

As I've written earlier, I have to wonder if STC wishes he hadn't put money on the table in the 2014-6 time frame to help make a NEO happen. It seems if anything he was insisting on his usual price concessions rather than offering to help fund (even in a token amount) the NEO development effort. In turn that made Airbus say they needed more customers.

On the other hand, maybe this is far from the worst case scenario for EK. Maybe they feel they used A380 to push their growth as much as possible but now see their growth phase is ending and it's time to shift towards optimizing their network.

Arion640 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.

How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?

I said the A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft.

I didn't say the 787 is a not-hub-to-not-hub aircraft, so you're offering a strawman argument.
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
 
OMAAbound
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:43 am

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:00 pm

Personally the A380 arrived at a time when it really wasn’t viable. The economy in general was in a bad place, the $, £ & € were weak and banks were being bailed out.

But that said, IMO, the A380 has arrived both too late and too early. Had it arrived in the late 90’s early 00’s it would have been a huge success and the same goes for the future. In another 5-10 years time, I feel there’d be a case for an A380.

But as has had been said, we’ll never know!

OMAA
Right hand seat of a 787. Also can be found eating sandwiches, drinking coffee and attempting to understand Chinese ATC!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:01 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?


This is semantics and nothing is worse than arguing semantics on the internet.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1385
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:39 pm

OMAAbound wrote:
Personally the A380 arrived at a time when it really wasn’t viable. The economy in general was in a bad place, the $, £ & € were weak and banks were being bailed out.

But that said, IMO, the A380 has arrived both too late and too early. Had it arrived in the late 90’s early 00’s it would have been a huge success and the same goes for the future. In another 5-10 years time, I feel there’d be a case for an A380.

But as has had been said, we’ll never know!

OMAA


Agreed.


Even if it was on-time, it wouldn't have made a difference.

1. 9/11 happened that shook up air travel.
2. Global economic recession that shook up air travel.
3. Record high oil prices as a result of #2.
4. Wing-rib issue right after EIS.
5. The -800 is a shrink. Shrinks are dying across all type families. Should have been the base model.

1, 2, 3, and 4, could never have been predicted. They probably thought the market would have from 9/11 by EIS, and then 2, 3, and 4 happened. Timing was never in favour of the A380.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:07 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?


This is semantics and nothing is worse than arguing semantics on the internet.


Since the (vast) majority of twins (787, 350) operate from a hub, it can be argued that in fact they increase the strength of the hub.
Hardly just semantics then, I would think . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:33 pm

PW100 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?


This is semantics and nothing is worse than arguing semantics on the internet.


Since the (vast) majority of twins (787, 350) operate from a hub, it can be argued that in fact they increase the strength of the hub.
Hardly just semantics then, I would think . . .


Well, it’s a bad argument.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:42 pm

To the original question, imo they might have sold 50-100 more if they had executed on time but the program would still fail.

The day of the QUAD is over, never to return, and not to turn it ito A vs B, that goes for the 748 also.

Real airlines are increasingly focused on bottom line, and the economics of the twin are unbeatable. Imho EK was hobbled by STC, who thought it was still 1985 and that the airline with the most large quads wins the prestige game. Without STC and his flawed outlook, A380 wouldn't have lasted this long.

MHO
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:55 pm

SteelChair wrote:
To the original question, imo they might have sold 50-100 more if they had executed on time but the program would still fail.

The day of the QUAD is over, never to return, and not to turn it ito A vs B, that goes for the 748 also.

Real airlines are increasingly focused on bottom line, and the economics of the twin are unbeatable. Imho EK was hobbled by STC, who thought it was still 1985 and that the airline with the most large quads wins the prestige game. Without STC and his flawed outlook, A380 wouldn't have lasted this long.

MHO

Never say never. Many factors (foreseeable or not today) could imply a return of the 4-or-more engine aircraft, such as:
- electric fans. Current demonstrators have multiple motors (where the comparable fossil fuel plane have only one);
- whatever change in legislation that would make A380-size planes or bigger viable (such as restriction of aircraft movement); I know that was the main argument behind the A380 and it did not materialize, but no one knows what the future holds.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2385
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:14 pm

PolarRoute wrote:
gokmengs wrote:
Thats a good point as well maybe they should have offered the 900 first and the CASM would be much better off the bat.


My apologies, I stated vaguely to avoid my post getting eyewateringly long, but should have worded it better.

I think an optimized -800 would have competed better as -900 would have been too big for technology back then to handle the required yield to fill that monster. In other words, yield is going to get hit too hard on a -900, squeezing the space between RASM and CASM to be too risky. And the -900 would also have been restricted by the 80m box just like the current -800 anyway so the operating cost should have been even worse. That's not good on capacity cost, where the A380 suffers the most. An optimized 800 with high AR wing would have made sense concerning the balance between manageable yield and net cost.

Just my 2 cents.

Arion640 wrote:
Revelation wrote:

A380 is a hub-to-hub aircraft, and the market has shown the response to hub congestion is hub bypass, not 500+ seat aircraft.


How many 787 operators can you name that don’t operate from a hub at one end of the flight, compared to those that do?



A good recipe to turn this into yet another A vs B flamebait

And I don't think his point was to say that either..

*Edited to answer another post


So what does hub bypass say to you? Point to point. Perhaps I shouldn’t of highlighted the 787 specifically but that’s what his post was pointing too. What is the opposite of hub to hub? Point to point!

Nevermind, no need to turn this into a v b.
223 319 320 321 333 346 359 388 733 73G 738 744 752 753 763 764 772 77E 773 77W 788 789 MD83 E145 E175 E195 RJ85 F70 DH8C DH8D AT75

Brexit - It’s time for global Britain.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8763
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:32 pm

IMHO a timely EIS and production ramp up would have been even more
problematic mostly for Airlines up against market contraction
and sitting on expensive but unusable A380 frames. ( Airbus then hit via fall out.)
I have a feeling the 787 was timed "around" the GFC.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3766
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:54 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Well, it’s a bad argument.


Well, I disagree.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
harleydriver
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:09 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:44 am

Airbus bet on the A380 being attractive to airlines that operate out of slot controlled airports. I believe they may have sold a few more frames if it was on time but they completely misunderstood the market and paid for it. Sure, Boeing built the 747-8 but it was an upgrade to an existing airframe and I feel they were going with the cargo market more than the passenger side. Airbus might have done better with the A380 if they stuck with the cargo option but I wonder if it would have been worth a certification program for that option in the big picture.
Department of Redundancy Department
 
gokmengs
Topic Author
Posts: 1189
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 am

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:25 am

Slug71 wrote:
OMAAbound wrote:
Personally the A380 arrived at a time when it really wasn’t viable. The economy in general was in a bad place, the $, £ & € were weak and banks were being bailed out.

But that said, IMO, the A380 has arrived both too late and too early. Had it arrived in the late 90’s early 00’s it would have been a huge success and the same goes for the future. In another 5-10 years time, I feel there’d be a case for an A380.

But as has had been said, we’ll never know!

OMAA


Agreed.


Even if it was on-time, it wouldn't have made a difference.

1. 9/11 happened that shook up air travel.
2. Global economic recession that shook up air travel.
3. Record high oil prices as a result of #2.
4. Wing-rib issue right after EIS.
5. The -800 is a shrink. Shrinks are dying across all type families. Should have been the base model.

1, 2, 3, and 4, could never have been predicted. They probably thought the market would have from 9/11 by EIS, and then 2, 3, and 4 happened. Timing was never in favour of the A380.


agree with most although scenario would be no wing rib issue and an issue free roll out. Timing was really the biggest enemy.

SteelChair wrote:
To the original question, imo they might have sold 50-100 more if they had executed on time but the program would still fail.

The day of the QUAD is over, never to return, and not to turn it ito A vs B, that goes for the 748 also.

Real airlines are increasingly focused on bottom line, and the economics of the twin are unbeatable. Imho EK was hobbled by STC, who thought it was still 1985 and that the airline with the most large quads wins the prestige game. Without STC and his flawed outlook, A380 wouldn't have lasted this long.

MHO


Bold statement that the QUAD is over but seems that way for the foreseeable future, or we have unprecedented growth globally for Emerging Market economies with Turkey like growth in Emerging countries aviation market. Can you guys imagine 380 make a comeback? :)

Mods: I rarely question anything done by you guys but, I think its unfair this topic has been moved to Polls & Preferences. I mean was it the wording of the thread title? Its a very valid question for an event that took place and how it would be if it happened otherwise, this forum is full of speculation and opinion, and I have been here for years lately I fell like there is favoritism towards many users that are frequent thread starters (albeit very valuable contributors nothing against them) Don't know if others who posted on this thread feel the same way I do that this thread shouldn't have been moved from civ av.
Yaşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa Yaşa, Adın Yazılacak Mücevher Taşa
 
WIederling
Posts: 8763
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Where Would The A380 Be If It EIS'd As Planned?

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:37 am

harleydriver wrote:
Airbus bet on the A380 being attractive to airlines that operate out of slot controlled airports. I believe they may have sold a few more frames if it was on time but they completely misunderstood the market and paid for it.

If the markets had continued their projected growth they would have sold a bunch more.
[email protected] and [email protected] caused massive to strong contractions.

Sure, Boeing built the 747-8 but it was an upgrade to an existing airframe and I feel they were going with the cargo market more than the passenger side. Airbus might have done better with the A380 if they stuck with the cargo option but I wonder if it would have been worth a certification program for that option in the big picture.


This is a bit of a history rewrite.
Primary Boeing product at the time was the 748i. The freighter is a bit of a cushion for a failed project.
But customers would have bought the 744F ( or 777F ) with no 748F available.
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dasa, UADiesel10 and 16 guests

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