Boeing Mulls Stretching 777 to Knock Out Airbus A380

[JammedStab]

Boeing Co. is proposing to stretch its largest 777 model to create a twin-engine behemoth aimed at delivering a knock-out blow to Airbus Group SE's struggling A380 superjumbo, said people familiar with its plans.

The U.S. planemaker has approached several carriers about the plane it calls the 777-10X, including Dubai-based Emirates, the world's largest operator of both Boeing's 777 and Airbus' double-decker aircraft, said the people, who asked not to be identified because talks are private.

The proposed model would carry about 450 travelers, sharpening its rivalry with the A380, two of the people said. To do so, Boeing would stretch the frame of its 777-9 to squeeze in about four extra rows of seats. The -9, whose debut is slated for decade's end, will be the first twin-engine model to encroach on jumbo territory by hauling more than 400 passengers.

"We are always evaluating technologies, airplane configurations and market needs," said Doug Alder, a Boeing spokesman. "While no decisions have been made, we will continue to study 777X derivatives and seek customer input to develop products that provide the most value for customers."

An Emirates spokeswoman said that the world's biggest international airline is in "regular contact" with both Boeing and Airbus about current and future fleet requirements.

A380 Uncertainty

While Emirates has reviewed the new 777 variant, it isn't sold on the concept, said a person familiar with the talks. The carrier has ordered 289 jets from Boeing's 777 family, including 150 of the upgraded versions known as the 777X. Boeing unsuccessfully pitched Emirates on its 747-8 jumbo two years ago as a potential A380 replacement.

The U.S. manufacturer is angling to take advantage of uncertainty over the future of the A380, and any strain in Airbus' relationship with Emirates.

While the Gulf carrier, which has taken 80 A380s and last month ordered two more, lifting its backlog to 64, has been pressing the European planemaker to upgrade the model to bolster fuel savings, Airbus has been reluctant to make the multibillion-dollar investment for essentially one customer.

Tim Clark, president of Emirates, told Bloomberg earlier this month that talks with Airbus to enhance the A380 with new engines had lapsed. "My main concern is that they stop producing the plane," he said. The airline's A380s seat between 489 and 615 passengers, according to its website.

Boeing is exploring ways to expand its current product line-up into new market niches as it battles Airbus for supremacy in the wide-body market and staves off new competitive threats to its best-selling 737 narrow-body jets. Also on its drawing board: a potential redesign of the smallest 737 Max and a stretch of the largest plane in that family.

Enlarging the 777-9, which is already designed to seat more than 400 people, would give Boeing another way to woo jumbo-jet operators as sales of the four-engine A380 and 747 falter. Boeing's large twin-engine jets have hastened their demise by offering similar range and seating, ample cargo capacity and greater savings on fuel and maintenance.

Boeing's proposed plane could also help the U.S. planemaker counter a new stretched version of the A350 wide-body jetliner that Airbus has been discussing with prospective customers who don't need the engine thrust or the range of the 777-9.

Most Expensive

The -9, the best-selling member of the 777X family, seats between 400 and 425 passengers and has the range to fly 7,600 nautical miles (14,075 kilometers). It is the most expensive Boeing jetliner, and the first to bear a US$400 million price tag.

Sales of the 777X have slowed since Boeing unveiled the plane amid a blitz for 235 orders at the Dubai Airshow in November 2013. The upgraded planes will feature Boeing's largest-ever wingspan, complete with tips that fold up while the plane taxis around airports.

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and All Nippon Airways Co. are customers, along with the three-largest Persian Gulf carriers. Boeing's last sale came more than a year ago, when an unidentified customer ordered 10 of the planes.

[msbbarratt]

Hmm, I guess that the operative word is "squeeze". Emirates and the other operators of the A380 have been successful largely because it doesn't squeeze in passengers, it's actually the complete opposite. Quiet too.

I think that there's every chance of an A380neo and stretch at some point, which Airbus can trot out at almost any time they like.

Airlines that have built up a large and loyal customer base won't be keen to risk losing that by squeezing them into a cramped 777 tube. A shiny new 777 would be expensive indeed if it results in 10% of the customer base choosing a different airline.

So I think that we'll see A380 struggle on as airlines decide to buy whilst they still can, and maybe buy a lot more if Airbus do a neo or stretch.

[notapilot15]

I hope not. Boeing should develop ability to learn from others and its own mistakes. Cannot have too many money pit projects.

Most airlines cannot fill VLAs without offering heavily discounted tickets. So unless manufacturer sells the plane at 65% discount, VLA is not worth it.

779 is best selling :rolleyes: There are only 300 total 77X orders. There is no evidence others are ready to buy in 100s.

[Methersgate]

We have been here before... a few times... Boeing have a habit of popping out these projects with no real intention of building them, simply to head off a customer who might he thinking of an Airbus - anyone else remember the one and a half decked 767 project, dubbed by the late Peter Sutch of CX "The hunchback of Washington State"?

[skydiver69]

Surely there's more to making a large capacity aeroplane than just aiming for capacity? The A-380 is popular as it can be loaded in an efficient way as well as having a large seating area meaning that SLF are looked after in a comfortable way. My first thought is that a stretched 777 is more likely to finally kill off the 747 than the A-380.

[er340790]

My first thought is that a stretched 777 is more likely to finally kill off the 747 than the A-380.

Wot he said. :D

[notapilot15]

That's like beating two dead horses.

[bnt]

I don't know, this sounds like more of a competitor for the A350-1000 than the A380. The -900 is on target for 370 min ETOPS certification this year (says Airbus (http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/faa-approves-a350-xwb-for-beyond-180-minutes-etops/)), the -1000 is due this year. So unless Boeing is about to bolt a couple more fans on to the 777, I don't think the A380 is the one Boeing to be concerned about.

[philbky]

What on earth is the point of, and who would want to fly, a widebody with 300+ pax on one engine for 370 minutes? Well perhaps an accountant might think that completing a flight to destination on one engine without dumping fuel and diverting might be economical but, if that is the case, those enforcing such nonsense should have to endure such a flight every six months.

[DaveReidUK]

ETOPS is about landing at the nearest suitable airport, not about continuing the flight to the destination.

[philbky]

I am well aware of the raison d'etre for ETOPs. Apart from perhaps some southern routings between South Africa and Australia and the potential for trans Antarctic services, just where on the current route network around the world would 370 minutes be needed? It seems to me that the further ETOPS times are stretched, the greater the temptation for ops departments to be put under pressureto encourage crews to "press on". We have already had an example of an airline crew being instructed to divert because the aircraft's computers rejected a runway/weather combination that the type regularly deals with at the destination involved for that carrier. Whilst that cost the airline money, who's to say that an engine out on a trans Pacific sector operated by a 370 minutes certified carrier wouldn't tempt an airline's ops department to "encourage" a crew to press on to a destination, on the basis that the the rules say the aircraft is safe to continue. There is a growing tendency in many fields of commerce and industry to rely on the dictats of computerised systems and to work to the defined edges of systems and equipment limits on the grounds of economy. In aviation in particular this can quickly conflict with safety.

[Andy_S]

I think that there's every chance of an A380neo and stretch at some point, which Airbus can trot out at almost any time they like.

You clearly missed the bit which said:

Airbus has been reluctant to make the multibillion-dollar investment for essentially one customer.

Also......

Airlines that have built up a large and loyal customer base won't be keen to risk losing that by squeezing them into a cramped 777 tube. A shiny new 777 would be expensive indeed if it results in 10% of the customer base choosing a different airline.

You do realise that Emirates operate more 777 than A380, right? 10 across seating as well.

[DaveReidUK]

who's to say that an engine out on a trans Pacific sector operated by a 370 minutes certified carrier wouldn't tempt an airline's ops department to "encourage" a crew to press on to a destination, on the basis that the the rules say the aircraft is safe to continue.

Well the FAA, for a start ...

[philbky]

Strangely, the FAA doesn't have total control over all airlines operating on the multitude of routes across the Pacific, especially ones operated by non US airlines operating flights not touching US territory. History, especially aviation history, tells us that if the envelope can be pushed, one day it will be and that isn't limited to test pilots.

But I'm still waiting to hear where the need is for a 370 minute ETOPS. Even Boeing admits that the majority of airlines need only 240 minutes and the 330 minutes pioneered by Air New Zealand between Auckland and North and South America is probably exceptional, the other possibilities being trans North Pole flights when Siberian airports are socked in and trans Antarctic flights.

Of course any ETOPS flight only operates at maximum range from its nearest diversion point for a small percentage of the journey but Sods Law says that one day a shut down will occur at the furthest point and how many on here would sit happily in their seat, either at the pointy end or down the back, on a single engined 300 plus seater, for six hours and ten minutes over open ocean or uninhabited wastes. Squeaky bum time springs to mind.

[PAXboy]

The normalization of deviance is defined as:

“The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization.”

It's not just NASA who learnt this painful lesson but healthcare services and numerous places where repetitive process' are dealt with. There are many examples.

Since someone set the bar at 330 minutes another company will see it as a big 'win' if they can get 370 minutes. After all, if we get 40 minutes more than the other guy - surely we must be better? So the ratchet continues. (and stop calling me ...)

[tdracer]

The big carrot for ETOPS/EROPS was 180 minutes - with that you could go pretty much anywhere in the world (the most limiting case being US mainland to Hawaii), although the routing might not be optimum. At 210 minutes, few routes became sub-optimum. When you start talking above 300 minutes, it's basically a very small number of south pole polar routes - and becomes something of a 'mine's bigger than yours' exercise.
While overall shutdown rate clearly comes into play, a large part of the ETOPS equation is that most engine failures occur during takeoff/climb, not during cruise.
All that being said, those of us who put passenger comfort above price are clearly in the minority. If the average punter can save $100 suffering in a 777-10 instead of a relatively comfy A380 or 747-8i, they'll jump at the chance.
Boeing clearly recognizes that the future of the 747-8 is the freighter, not passenger. The 747-400 has proved to be hugely popular as a freighter - but most of the -400s are getting seriously long in the tooth (100k+ hour -400s are becoming the norm). Those 747-400s are not going to last forever, and Boeing is betting pretty serious money that eventually 747-8F are going to be needed as replacements.

[Rwy in Sight]

Irrelavant to the discussion here but when I read the number 370 I felt a bit unease due to the famous MH370.

As the ETOPS 370 will be used fairly marginal (we have not identified any routes that can be used) there are considerable more chances for a bad outcome on the shorter ETOPS segments. So a question - given most airlines use bi-engine aircraft for long range flights would a crash of such aircraft would impact the sector or the public will only register just as an accident and will rapidly forget?


And for the issue at hand: I have not flown on an A380 but I thought a major plus for the aircraft is the space it can and does provide to premium pax something 777 can't do while maintaining capacity.

[bnt]

I suppose that was my point - the A380 has 4 engines and much more space than even a stretched 777 will have, so the idea of those two competing is a bit weird IMHO. But then I suppose airlines are looking more at cost per passenger per mile, and all that, and two engines are cheaper than four.

That's also why I mentioned the race for ETOPS bragging rights - "my ETOPS is bigger than yours!" - since I was wondering how much need there still is for 4 engines. The Great Circle Mapper lets you see the effect of ETOPS up to 330 min, and once you get past 180 minutes it only seems to matter if you're trying to cross the South Pacific e.g. 180 min up north (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD+-+LAX&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=180&EV=410&EU=kts) vs 240 min down south (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&EU=kts&EV=410&P=SYD+-+SCL&E=240). (Using the "777" glide speed settings of 410 kts.)

[Ian W]

I suppose that was my point - the A380 has 4 engines and much more space than even a stretched 777 will have, so the idea of those two competing is a bit weird IMHO. But then I suppose airlines are looking more at cost per passenger per mile, and all that, and two engines are cheaper than four.



It is a little more complex than that. An A380 can carry 600+ pax on a route as one flight in the day. But the demand may be for different times of day either for connections from feeder aircraft or because business travelers want to travel at different times dependent on what meetings they need to get to. So is it better to operate two 777 or even four 767 rather than one A380. This is a business decision by the airline. The bucket and spades tourists will go for the cheap and live with the time of departure/arrival. Business travelers are more likely to want specific departure times and connections. So what market is the airline trying to satisfy?
This was the initial reason for the A380 vs B787 approaches - thick routes vs thin routes. Subsequently both A and B have hedged their bets with A350 and B747/8. It is notable though that both the 380 and the 747/8 are not selling as well as expected whereas 787 and 350 are selling well.

[philbky]

I might rejig the sentence to say the A380 is not selling as well as expected and, freighters apart, the 747-8 has almost no appeal for the airlines. It is a tad ironic that, in what will be its final iteration, the 747 has pretty much reverted to the role for which Boeing designed its first wide body and, having lost out to the C-5, was supposedly destined for the cargo role in civilian service after a short life as a passenger hauler until the expected adoption of SSTs by the world's major airlines.

Manufacturers may propose but the airlines make the decisions.

[vapilot2004]

I suppose that was my point - the A380 has 4 engines and much more space than even a stretched 777 will have, so the idea of those two competing is a bit weird IMHO.

I was very surprised to learn below the decks, the 777-300ER has a larger cargo area than the A380 and most operators of the two aircraft report higher revenue cargo numbers ($) for the twin compared to big bird.

I was told the 777 not only begins with a larger volume below, but once baggage is loaded on both aircraft, the A380's volume is further lessened in comparison.

One final note to share - the amount of "belly" space utilized fleet-wide adds up to around 40% of the global air cargo market.

[misd-agin]

LD3 capacity -

380 - 38 Approx 500 passengers
773 - 44 Approx 320 passengers

If the 380 filled it's cargo space full with passenger bags a 777, with the same number of bags per passenger, would have space for 20 LD3's of cargo.

[West Coast]

Yes, and throw on alternate/hold/contingency/Capt add fuel. Nothing quite fills the shoes of a 4 holer.

[msbbarratt]

@ Andy_S,

Originally Posted by msbbarratt

I think that there's every chance of an A380neo and stretch at some point, which Airbus can trot out at almost any time they like.You clearly missed the bit which said:

Airbus has been reluctant to make the multibillion-dollar investment for essentially one customer.Also......

Originally Posted by msbbarratt

Airlines that have built up a large and loyal customer base won't be keen to risk losing that by squeezing them into a cramped 777 tube. A shiny new 777 would be expensive indeed if it results in 10% of the customer base choosing a different airline.You do realise that Emirates operate more 777 than A380, right? 10 across seating as well.I know all that, but ultimately one cannot ignore the fact that:



Passengers like the A380, and quite a lot of regular passengers avoid buying tickets on anything else especially 10-across 777.
Emirates and some other well placed operators have no trouble filling them. Emirates themselves have been quoted in various articles saying that a lot of their custom is repeat and regular business, exactly the type of business airlines like. The A380 also gives them the room to offer highly profitable exotic seats like the Residence, suites, etc.
Slot congestion at major airports is only going to get worse, meaning there will always be a need to a huge aircraft
Replacing A380 with, for example, a 10-across 777-? after many years of A380 operations would be a return to sardine packing, definitely a business gamble for the successfully busy A380 operators.


And I think that it'll come down to that. If the ME3 (and other operators) want to perpetuate their premium image beyond the lifetime of their A380s and still be able to carry a large numbers of passengers in a single flight, then it's hard to see what else they could buy.

It could descend into a game of cat-n-mouse. At the first hint of the A380 production line being closed up, Emirates or someone else will order a few to keep the line open. And if the operators and Airbus orgranise themselves then a NEO or stretch will be done.

An A380neo clearly is not going to happen in the near future, but the pressure for it will not be going away any time soon.

Of course RR can sort of do the neo all by themselves, simply by upgrading the -900 beyond all recognition. It wouldn't be the first time they've back-ported new tech to old engines (e.g. -524H-T), and they could always to a plug/pylon compatible new engine design.

[Andy_S]

Replacing A380 with, for example, a 10-across 777-? after many years of A380 operations would be a return to sardine packing, definitely a business gamble for the successfully busy A380 operators.

And yet Emirates already operate the 10-across 777. Many more of them, in fact, than the A380 (as do the other two of the ME3). So it clearly works for them.

[Selfloading]

As a passenger, if the choice is between a B777 and an A380, then there is no choice, A380 every time.

[msbbarratt]

And yet Emirates already operate the 10-across 777. Many more of them, in fact, than the A380 (as do the other two of the ME3). So it clearly works for them. Indeed, and they're just as cramped as everyone else's 10-across 777. The A380 also works for them too. It's a big contrast.

About this quality vs. price thing: with the level of competition in the market long haul flights are remarkably good value for money, and getting cheaper. Once the price hits a certain low level it'll stop being a purchasing factor, and other things (schedule, ride comfort, in flight service) will become more of a consideration. Good ride comfort is harder to offer in an aircraft that makes no economic sense with 9 across, and is unpleasant at 10 across.

[Ian W]

And yet Emirates already operate the 10-across 777. Many more of them, in fact, than the A380 (as do the other two of the ME3). So it clearly works for them.
Emirates also operate the '10 across A380'. Perhaps you only flew on the upper deck?

[metrognomicon]

10-across A380 beats 10-across 777 any day.

[Andy_S]

I don't understand your point. 10 across in the 777 and 10 across in the A380 are different things. msbbarratt has made the reasonable point that the 777 '10 across' configuration is generally perceived as being cramped and that by contrast the extra width on the A380 (even at 10 across) is a big selling point for the latter over the former. I've countered that since Emirates have more of the the 10-across 777 in their fleet than A380's the 777 must work for them; passengers clearly aren't put off to that degree.

[crew101]

Flying wide bodies and being a pilot for 26+ years it's about $$$$ plain and simple. Four engines burn to much gas, more MX,more of everything that cost money. Cargo pays very well, we will bump pax for cargo if It pays (call it weight restrictions,,,) The A380 is dead it just has to fall over, special gates, runways and so on, no cargo variant. The 747 will hang on as a freighter till the big twins kill it too.

Ps as a whale driver it saddens me to say this.

[philbky]

Emirates does well out of its A380s because they move volume through the Dubai hub in a way few other airlines are set up to do. The configuration of their fleet has the widest range of seating choices from the super expensive suites to the basic economy, yet with a certain cache at even the lowest prices and certainly offering more comfort in economy than on a single deck wide body. Taking pax from other carriers' direct services by competitive pricing over Dubai fills the cheap seats, offers a massive influx of shoppers to Dubai Airport's duty free shops and puts the airline in the top rankings in a region where being top dog carries weight.

Emirates on its own has the clout to push Airbus into either continuing the A380 as is or improving the breed and as slot constraints grow not only on runways but in airspace, Airbus would be foolish to kill the project as other carriers may have to follow suit, sooner rather than later.

[CONSO]

IMHO- rather than stretch a 737 or make a new version 757- both single isle- an updated and slightly stretched 767 twin isle would be a major game changer. Wings of composite, a bit bigger engines can be added without the 737 limited clearance issues, and a few other tweaks- updated cockpit- enhanced fly by wire, etc could fill the ' passenger seat gap '

But since I'm not a jack swelch wannabee- or a mdc defense convert used to govt tit- I'm obviously wrong- power point rangers rule . . :ugh:

[deSitter]

I am impressed by Boeing's decision to forego a double-decker - a decision made at least three times - and now it seems they will be proven right. The double deck (and the low cockpit) is what will prevent the A380 from getting a second chance as a cargo hauler. Airbus were warned. I have come to appreciate the misshapen La Grande Baleine du Ciel, when it has a good livery (rare, QATAR got it right), but it was always a solution to a problem that did not exist. I don't even think Boeing needs to make this 10X, but they probably should, and probably will. The A380 is already finished. And the 747-8 will fly on through the cargo-hauling nights, with the occasional passenger version a grand remembrance of things past, and reminder of things future.

[tdracer]

Sadly, ticket price has become the overriding concern. I was booking a business trip recently and the travel tool wasn't letting me book my preferred flight because it cost $3 more than the lowest price option - seriously, three freeking dollars.:ugh:
I've never flown Emirates - nor have most of my co-workers. We're allowed business class when traveling overseas, but Emirates Business price was so much higher than the competition that, even going to a meeting in Dubai, the travel tool won't allow Emirates. I've flown on an A380 - business class on Korean from LA to Incheon - and was very impressed. The A380 was noticeably quieter than the 777 that I came back on. In the future, given the option, I'll chose the A380 over a 777 if the price is similar. Problem is the price usually isn't similar.:rolleyes:


Bottom line, if operators can fly 500 people on an A380 for 10 cents/mile, or 450 people on a 777 for 9 cents/mile, the 777 wins hands down, comfort be damned.

[notapilot15]

Emirates does well out of its A380s because they move volume through the Dubai hub in a way few other airlines are set up to do. The configuration of their fleet has the widest range of seating choices from the super expensive suites to the basic economy, yet with a certain cache at even the lowest prices and certainly offering more comfort in economy than on a single deck wide body. Taking pax from other carriers' direct services by competitive pricing over Dubai fills the cheap seats, offers a massive influx of shoppers to Dubai Airport's duty free shops and puts the airline in the top rankings in a region where being top dog carries weight.

Emirates on its own has the clout to push Airbus into either continuing the A380 as is or improving the breed and as slot constraints grow not only on runways but in airspace, Airbus would be foolish to kill the project as other carriers may have to follow suit, sooner rather than later.
Even though that is the story line from EK management, many expressed doubts about EK's ability to make money on many of its routes. Only time will tell.

EK is looking into Premium Economy as corporate travel spending is trending down.

If I understand correctly, Airbus already stopped (paper)work on A380NEO.

Name one slot restricted airport which badly needs all A380s. Please note only 1% LHR movements are A380. Similar numbers with DXB.

[pax britanica]

EK does have lots of T7s and they compare poorly in all classes with the 380. But surely EK know that and as a rule the 380s go on higher yield destinations and the T7s dont.

Also some routes carrya large proportion of less well off but less bulky Asian pax who are probably OK with 10 abreast T7s and would nt want to pay any more than they had to for the 380. With Emirate big fleets the horses for courses approach probably works extremely well.

Economics for many others though favour the T7 especially the lower MX costs and the freight capability (one thing I think underestimated by AB when they launched the 380) What I would be interested to see -but am not holdign my breath is the premium pax view on the 380 vs T7 from premium heavy airlines like BA and AF , LH dont have T7s so hard to include them .

The T7-300 is a great efficient machine but havent Boeing learned that things can be stretched too far. 764 753 and 739 either didnt sell well or have other quite serious defects. So to replace the t&-300 it really needs anew aircraft and thats looking some way into the future and they will have to re evaluate the double deck all over again as to get 600 people onto a conventional twin aisle means a time difference between the front and back

[philbky]

Name one slot restricted airport which badly needs all A380s. Please note only 1% LHR movements are A380. Similar numbers with DXB.

As you and I are both well aware there are a number of airports, Heathrow being one - thus the third runway debate, where slot growth is severely restricted or not available. Slots don't just depend on runway/ramp/gate space, they depend on when passengers are prepared to depart and arrive, much of which depends on geography, not to mention noise rules. Air space is also under pressure in many terminal areas and not a few routes where it is restricted for military or political reasons.

Nothing in my post stated that any airport badly needs all A380s. Your interpretation of my words Emirates on its own has the clout to push Airbus into either continuing the A380 as is or improving the breed and as slot constraints grow not only on runways but in airspace, Airbus would be foolish to kill the project as other carriers may have to follow suit, sooner rather than later. is ridiculous.

There is a physical limitation to the length a fuselage can be. Whilst non metal products can offer greater strengths than traditional aluminium, the need to rotate on take off increases undercarriage height and/or position in ratio to length of fuselage and gate space also militates against ever increasing lengths and wingspans - thus the 77X folding wingtips.

There comes a point where the only way to grow is up. The 747 started it, the A380 has developed the breed. There will be more to come.

[Enos]

The survival of the 380 is not about passengers liking it, its about accountants buying it.


4 engine aircraft make money when they are full. Empty and they cost a fortune.


2 engine aircraft don't make as much money full but don't cost as much to run empty.


380 is good for slot constricted airports, that's why only a hand full of airlines have bought it, it doesn't carry much freight, not just that it doesn't have the space below, it can also be trim problem. Airfreight can be 25% of an airlines profit, accountants won't turn their back on that when they are struggling to make a profit.


Then it comes to 24hr utilization fly it 8-10 hours (9 -10 hrs is the aircrafts sweet spot) turn it around for 2 hrs and it fly it home again and your using it, if the sector is not that long or longer then you've got to find somewhere else to fly it to or look at it costing money on a parking stand, then you're into the Intentional Miss Use Of Wide Body Airliners, most airlines with wide body aircraft do this. Dump 450 seats onto a 3hrs sector on a Tuesday afternoon in winter you are not going to make money, park it you're losing money!


Compromise and don't buy such a big aircraft, make money on the good days of the week and don't lose large amounts on the bad days.


EK do OK with the 380, they move a huge number of people due Dubai's geographical location, they are slot constrained at Dubai and to a hand full of their key destinations like LHR LGW SYD BNE and they can use the aircraft at a profit when its not going to slot constricted airports due to nature of their network.


Most other big airlines like BA AF LH don't have the vast network that EK has hence the limited number of 380s they have.


The 380 is dead in the water if it wasn't for EK it would be dead now, no manufacturer can run a production line without orders.


There could be another 60 380s roll off the production line and that will be it, there are no other airlines who would buy it, may be airbus will pull the pin sooner.

[Methersgate]

The original quote, from Duncan Bluck, is "the intelligent mis-use of aircraft", and it was the policy that built CX from a little airline to a big one. The meaning is a little different - a classic example being CX's use of the 747 on the HK-Manila route and the HK/Taipei route, many years ago. Another way of looking at it is "Don't operate thin routes" - another CX-ism, from the RB211-524 era, is "Locate a spare engine at the end of the route, and then make the most use of it by running as many planes as possible on the route."

[SeenItAll]

I keep hearing the A380 supporters arguing that it improves efficiency at slot-restricted airports. But this may not be so. Due to wake turbulence, aircraft following a Super must generally maintain larger distance separations than when following Heavies. Further, gate and taxiway limitations may also increase Super handling costs and thus reduce airport efficiencies.

Finally, to quote Juan Trippe of PanAm -- what he means by aircraft "payload" is not the total weight carried, but the load that pays. It doesn't really matter what is more comfortable for the PAX, if the extra amount they are willing to pay for extra comfort does not exceed the extra cost of providing this comfort, the airline ain't gonna provide it. Further, this calculation is based on how much the average customer values this comfort and is willing to pay for it. If an individual customer (or small groups of customers) has a higher valuation, the airline is happy to accommodate them in Business or First Class (at their rates). They will not accommodate them by improving the overall comfort of Coach.

[glofish]

As a passenger, if the choice is between a B777 and an A380, then there is no choice, A380 every time.

... And between a 380 and a modern BBJ it will be the latter hands down.

When will people start to understand that you can fit a bar, a shower and more insulation layers even into an old Tupolev! It all comes down to if this superior luxury can offset its higher cost with a better yield. So as long as the seat is offered at the same price, logically enough any sane slf will chose the more luxurious outfit.
Unfortunately the recent booking numbers show the better yielding seats not full, but the eco seats chronically overbooked by a fair number. The flights leave full, but there are doubts about the required yield to offset the higher cost of the better equipped 4-holer.
We will not know the effective numbers, no management disclose that, but the nomination of the renowned crisis manager C. Mueller, the drop in revenue (in %) and occupancy in the last years report and now the rumoured recruitment stop for CC tell a certain story that is sustained by ever louder rumours from the bounty castle.
Is it a surprise that this coincides with an apparent possibility of a manufacturing stop for the whale and Boeing boasting a bigger version of the T7? I guess not.

Some dreamers still try to defy basic physics and the resulting economics, but the hard reality seems to give the 4-holers a tough time, just as it does to the CEO of EK who titled all other managers not going for the 380 as silly .........

[philbky]

I keep hearing the A380 supporters arguing that it improves efficiency at slot-restricted airports. But this may not be so. Due to wake turbulence, aircraft following a Super must generally maintain larger distance separations than when following Heavies. Further, gate and taxiway limitations may also increase Super handling costs and thus reduce airport efficiencies.

The wake turbulence argument is a marginal one given the large reduction in the number of 747s in service so, on a one for one basis, the actual distance required for a greater number of A380s would not impact as much on slots as the 747 did when it was introduced. The argument could easily have been used for the arrival of the smaller wide bodies and anything else replacing the 707/DC8 fleets and wake turbulence didn't really trouble LHR and other European airport slots, when BA replaced its Tridents with 757s which required greater separations.

As far as gate and taxiway limitations are concerned, this exercised both Airbus and airport managements over 20 years ago. Whilst fillets are required for many taxiway turnouts, the gate imprint of an A380 was deliberately constrained to the space required by the 747-400, something the 77X cannot offer without the extra costs and maintenance of folding wingtips.

As for jetways, turn round costs etc., it is interesting that airports such as Auckland for instance, which is not slot constrained, which every day handles 3 x A380s at once at a moderate sized terminal, campaigned hard to get its A380 services for the increase in passenger throughput with no increase in movements or environmental impact.

Slot constraints without the availability of super sized aircraft reduce income for airlines and airports are a recipe for a static or even a declining industry and that goes against all the predictions of the growth the industry expects.

[Enos]

Philbky

You are right AKL is not slot constrained, but it just so happens that BNE MEL and SYD are.

There's about a 9hr window for arrivals and departures in and out of DXB that connect Europe with OZ.

So rather than have the aircraft sitting around on contested ramps attracting absorbatant parking fees they fly them 3hrs to AKL clean them and fly them back to OZ dumping seats on the market and code shares with QF.

This way the passengers leave Europe arrive in OZ at the right time and vs versa.

Cheers Enos

[172driver]

I would be interested to see -but am not holdign my breath is the premium pax view on the 380 vs T7 from premium heavy airlines like BA and AF , LH dont have T7s so hard to include them .

You asked, so I'll bite and jump in. I do a fair amount of long haul travel in Premium Eco / Biz and the 380 simply beats the T7 hands down. May have to do with the lower noise level, also that AFAIK the cabin flies lower. After 12 hours or so you simply arrive in better shape exiting a 380 than a T7.

[philbky]

Philbky

You are right AKL is not slot constrained, but it just so happens that BNE MEL and SYD are.

There's about a 9hr window for arrivals and departures in and out of DXB that connect Europe with OZ.

So rather than have the aircraft sitting around on contested ramps attracting absorbatant parking fees they fly them 3hrs to AKL clean them and fly them back to OZ dumping seats on the market and code shares with QF.

This way the passengers leave Europe arrive in OZ at the right time and vs versa.

Cheers Enos

Whilst what you say regarding what happens to the aircraft in Auckland is true, the rest is far too simplistic a relating of the story. The Auckland Airport Authority was looking for new services to connect to Europe, only ANZ offering a once a day through plane service over LAX. Other routes involved changing in Australia, Singapore or Hong Kong often with extended layovers.

As you say, Emirates had three aircraft doing nothing in Australia for long periods and, seemingly they were happy with this. The Auckland Airport Authority approached Emirates and offered slots and reasonable charges. They had to make a sound case for each route which took some time and negotiation. The benefit for the airport was not only the easy connection to Europe over Dubai but the uplift on the Australia- New Zealand sector which helped reduce the numbers of 737/A320 flights between the two countries by up to 600 flights a year, important in a country with strong environmental credentials. How do I know this? Because my cousin was Chair of the Authority at the time and initiated and saw through the negotiations.

The New Zealand - Europe market is now so strong for Emirates that an additional service has been started direct to and from Dubai, currently the world's longest non stop service. The story of that service is here. Emirates Launches Milestone Dubai-Auckland Non-Stop Route (http://www.emirates.com/media-centre/emirates-launches-milestone-dubai-auckland-non-stop-route)

[Methersgate]

Whilst what you say regarding what happens to the aircraft in Auckland is true, the rest is far too simplistic a relating of the story. The Auckland Airport Authority was looking for new services to connect to Europe, only ANZ offering a once a day through plane service over LAX. Other routes involved changing in Australia, Singapore or Hong Kong often with extended layovers.

As you say, Emirates had three aircraft doing nothing in Australia for long periods and, seemingly they were happy with this. The Auckland Airport Authority approached Emirates and offered slots and reasonable charges. They had to make a sound case for each route which took some time and negotiation. The benefit for the airport was not only the easy connection to Europe over Dubai but the uplift on the Australia- New Zealand sector which helped reduce the numbers of 737/A320 flights between the two countries by up to 600 flights a year, important in a country with strong environmental credentials. How do I know this? Because my cousin was Chair of the Authority at the time and initiated and saw through the negotiations.

The New Zealand - Europe market is now so strong for Emirates that an additional service has been started direct to and from Dubai, currently the world's longest non stop service. The story of that service is here. Emirates Launches Milestone Dubai-Auckland Non-Stop Route (http://www.emirates.com/media-centre/emirates-launches-milestone-dubai-auckland-non-stop-route)
"The intelligent mis-use of aeroplanes" in practice.

My son. a merchant navy officer joining his ship, took that flight last Thursday, having flown LGW/DXB on a 380 - afaik EK have just started putting 380s into LGW. He will now go out of his way to seek out 380s.

[notapilot15]

@philbky

Less than 1% of LHR movements are A380s. Rest of the 99% have no plans to buy A380s because LHR is slot restricted. This is with LHR charging same airport fees for A320/B737 and A380.

It is not easy to fill a VLA through out the year without trashing yields. Good for airlines who want to dump capacity on others. Not so good for airlines who need to earn for living.

[philbky]

Less than 1% of LHR movements are A380s.
i got that point when you first made it, not that it wasn't something I knew already.

Heathrow is already slot restricted with no room for expansion without a third runway - something you may have missed. 9/11 and the 2008 recession co-incided with a migration fron 4 engines to twins on the grounds of economy and the slow decline of the 747 in passenger service. Airlines which flew the 747 and migrated to twins are flying aircraft with fewer seats. The bean counters like twins, even with fewer seats, on the basis of reduced cost per seat mile.

However traffic is now growing and with smaller seating capacities offered the demand will be for more flights into slot constrained airports. Common sense says the equation doesn't work, something has to give.

[notapilot15]

@philbky

I understand what you are trying to say, but A380 is not the cure all. Your theory is academic in nature and your own example (747 to twins) proves trend is against VLAs.

Hypothetical example. If flybe sees a DHC6 as a viable plane to Barra, it is going to operate a DHC6 to Barra. Doesn't matter how big the other airport is, what problems it has, how great A380 CASM. All are irrelevant data points.

LHR can charge same for A380 and DHC6 to encourage VLAs over others, BUT it is up to the airline.

There is no way airlines going to invest in VLAs to help out LHR. They will go to different airport or different country.

Mega hub model never going to work forever. Competitors will start long thin non-stops which will nibble into hub feeds.

BTW, you missed the point that EK can only offer one-stop between AKL-Europe just like other 6th freedom carriers. Only ANZ can offer more non-stops.

[Andy_S]

Common sense says the equation doesn't work, something has to give.

Indeed. What will probably happen (is already happening in fact) is more point to point travel.

[recceguy]

Airbus will survive the misfortunes of the 380 - they sold about 200 aircraft yesterday at Farnborough...

[flight_mode]

I know you guys all think accountants run your airline, it's easy to see how that conclusion is reached but ultimately it's the passenger. No Pax = No Airline. Airlines can operate without accountants, but not without passengers.

EK had a twice daily service from ZRH, 1 T7 and 1 A380. now they have 2 half full A380's. Why? because frequent flyers and premium Pax simply stopped taking the 777, in the knowledge that if they departed 6 hours later they'd have a much better journey.

Same with ZRH-SIN you have two direct options, LX in their flying shed or SQ's A380. In C and F it's really a no brainer, no premium pax is ever going to choose* the pitiful C or F cabins on LX with their tiny IFE screens, narrow seats and ikea wardrobe bathrooms when they can be on the silent upper deck of a A380 with direct aisle access, huge bed, huge screen, huge wash room and a chef.

LX have responded to this by replacing their 340’s with the T7, but with exactly the same crappy cabins. Error. LX still fill their premium cabins, but how many are actually paying for it? They’re offering Y PAX discounted upgrades on check-in and then at the gate upgrading top tier Y PAX. SQ don’t.

*Many are constrained by company travel policy.

[notapilot15]

Well, we can discuss VLA success theories forever but they will be out of production very soon.

Airbus announced A380 production cut starting 2018 to 12/year
Boeing claims large jet(all wide bodies) market is sluggish at best.
Boeing said is stretching 777X beyond 400+ is technically feasible.

There is no need knock out already down A380, so Boeing, just don't shoot yourself in the foot wasting few more $$$Billions on the stretch.

Both had a good run with large/very large wide bodies. Now concentrate on small planes 100-150 with 5000nm range. B737 MAX 7 is a good start.

[DroneDog]

I am self loading luggage too, I get to choose who I fly with as I buy my own tickets.
For me its the A380 every time, there would need to be a huge financial incentive to lure me away from a A380 for a long haul.

[donpizmeov]

I think only a bit over 300 of them that have been sold. None sold in the past 12 months. And half of that order book is owned by EK. Not too sure about those folding wing tips though. Pretty much the same story for the 380 as well I guess, without the wingtips of course :)

[surely not]

For Emirates and other ME operators the high temperatures during the summer months have a very appreciable effect on payload that can be carried from around 1000 local time in the region. During these times the LR and ER twins are restricted in their payload due to engine failure on take off calcs whereas a 4 engine aeroplane is not.

I am aware of a scheduling department that refused to reschedule a 777 to an earlier STD on a non stop from UAE to YYZ and at STD the temp was so high the cargo had to be offloaded. By the time the cargo was offloaded and all baggage reloaded, around 15 minutes, baggage needed to be offloaded. Long story short it eventually left with nil bags and cargo.

For the rest of that summer the cargo payload was greatly reduced and the passenger load restricted as they couldn't move the STD forward without screwing up the connecting transfer traffic. The other solution was to schedule an A340-600 to the route and it could carry everything.

[b1lanc]

DDog
You can only choose them if the airlines find them financially efficient enough to keep flying them. I'm not sure that's a given for any large wide-bodies anymore - 2 or 4 holes.

[oldchina]

"Now concentrate on small planes 100-150 with 5000nm range. B737 MAX 7 is a good start"

Who wants to sit in a 737 for 11 hours? Same goes for the 757 ... what happened to that?
If they're too uncomfortable then you'd have to reinvent the 767-200. And poor economics meant that went the same way.

No, the only efficient alternatives to the VLAs are stretched LARGE twins. The idea of long thin routes with small aircraft has been around for dozens of years and has never really taken off. Operating costs per pax are just too high.

[KenV]

As a passenger, if the choice is between a B777 and an A380, then there is no choice, A380 every time. But in the near future that will not be the choice and its the near future this thread is about. It will be 777X or A380. The 777X is borrowing lots of technology from 787 and will be considerably quieter and more comfortable than 777. We'll have to wait and see if that means as quiet and comfortable as A380, or more so. If 777X exceeds A380 in that regard, what are the chances that the airlines will invest in their A380 to "catch up"? Especially if doing so INcreases the cost per seat-mile.

[Lonewolf_50]

The 777X is borrowing lots of technology from 787 and will be considerably quieter and more comfortable than 777. We'll have to wait and see if that means as quiet and comfortable as A380, or more so. If 777X exceeds A380 in that regard, what are the chances that the airlines will invest in their A380 to "catch up"? The sight line may end on the target, but there cometh perchance the misfire. :p
We'll see.

[glofish]

It will be 777X or A380

No. In the quite near future the 380 will be phased out. The race will be between the 350 and the 777X.

AB has to give its 12 wheeler -1000 wings and prove it can haul as much as predicted. Up to 350 pax the 350 seems very good, a threat to the 77W.
That's the main reason Boeing is "mulling" a stretch of the T7: It wants to occupy the 400+ region where the fuel guzzlers were roaming. If it gets dominance there, the family concept can sell the shorter T7 versions vs. the 350.

[glad rag]

But in the near future that will not be the choice and its the near future this thread is about. It will be 777X or A380. The 777X is borrowing lots of technology from 787 and will be considerably quieter and more comfortable than 777.

So how did you find both the A380 and 777 when YOU flew in them Ken?

I found the sheer space of the cattle class 380 very, very comfortable, cabin pressure at very comfortable level, and so much headroom

777 was cramped down back but to be fair the airline HAD filled every seat......


I believe your reply will be along the lines of "not biting" or something else insignificant.

:ok:

[philbky]

I've done Heathrow to Rio and back twice, Heathrow to Houston and back five times all on BA 777-200, Hong Kong - Singapore on SIA 777-200, Auckland to Rarotonga and back once on Air New Zealand 777-200, Singapore to Melbourne once on SIA 777-300 and Auckland to Los Angeles once on Air New Zealand 777-300. I have done Frankfurt to Houston and back once on Lufthansa A380. All flights down the back.

I've done a good number of A330 long hauls - I hope the A350 is an improvement, though Aer Lingus aren't exactly up there when it comes to their cabins.

Apart from the SIA rides and the Air New Zealand 300 rides where the cabin service was the better part of the experience and slightly colours the overall feeling, the A380 is quieter, feels roomier, is more comfortable in turbulence and seems altogether more a passenger's aeroplane than any large twin.

To those willing the early demise of the A380, go back forty years and see how the 747 was doing in a market where nationalised or flag waving airlines ordered the biggest aircraft they could buy out of pride with very few, if any, slot restricted airports. Take off the Boeing coloured spectacles and, while the A380 may not in the long term equal the 747 for numbers built, realise that engineering, ramp space, slot restrictions and passenger comfort, even down the back, all militate for double deck VLAs.

[Pax Vobiscum]

The biggest 747-8I customer is Lufthansa, but they also operate A380s. I'm sure there must be a good reason, but does anyone know why they chose to do this?

[DaveReidUK]

The biggest 747-8I customer is Lufthansa, but they also operate A380s. I'm sure there must be a good reason, but does anyone know why they chose to do this?

Lufthansa are probably unique in having operated every Airbus product (apart from, so far, the A350) and everything that Boeing have built up to and including the 747.

[tdracer]

A large part of the 747 success was that for a long time, if you wanted the range, it was the only aircraft that could provide it. Even if it was too big, if you needed the range it was the only game in town.
That's no longer the case - today the 777, 787, and A350 can all provide similar range to the A380 and 747-8i while costing a whole lot less to operate. Add in 200+ minute ETOPS, and VLA only make sense if you can keep them full.

[philbky]

tdracer, whilst that is true, once the 200srs established itself, the DC10-30 and later the 767-200ER would have, and in many cases eventually did, satisfy the needs of most long haul carriers as a compromise between size and range. In the period I mentioned, to compare fairly with the A380, the DC10-30 and 707-320C were the competition.

[172driver]

The biggest 747-8I customer is Lufthansa, but they also operate A380s. I'm sure there must be a good reason, but does anyone know why they chose to do this?

AFAIK it's a range and, possibly, also a cargo capacity issue. There must be a reason why they fly FRA-LAX with an A380 in the morning and a B747-8I around lunchtime (that's times ex FRA).

[glofish]

172driver

True, but the combination 380/748 is not the best, the 748 not being so soft on fuel and cost as well. EK will fly the LAX route with 380/777 shortly. Now that makes a lot of sense, if you're lucky enough to operate both models on such a route. Fill the behemouth with as many passengers as possible, it makes money that way, and offer some more capacity with a T7. Even if you don't fill the latter completely, at least its cargo capacity can be used efficiently. Synergy!

For the passenger there would be a choice, as many here boast. But to be quite honest, the slf don't really care about equipment. Maybe as a third parameter, yes, but at the very first comes price and then schedule. Comfort comes last and at least for me, comfort includes less time boarding, waiting for suitcases and in immigration lines. So at any station to chose between 350 and 600 passengers, i will always chose the smaller. ;)

[172driver]

EK will fly the LAX route with 380/777 shortly. Now that makes a lot of sense,

From a PAX POV only f you want to travel to the ME or beyond. Useless for Europe. In fact, Lufti are offering something for everyone: they also fly a daily A346 ex MUC!

For me comfort comes pretty high on the list on flights of that kind of duration. While I get your point about immigration and baggage, it's largely moot at the big hubs like LAX - if you arrive at the Tom Bradley terminal, there will always be about a gazillion people in front of you....

[Aluminium shuffler]

It's curious how many passengers think they know more about this subject than the airlines, and how many think it's all down to the 380 being comfier. The simple truth is that if the airlines decide the economics don't stack up, you will not have the choice of a 380 and will go on the cheaper 777.

As for criticising the 777X's comfort, that is plainly ridiculous - none of us know what it'll be like. There is a little difference between the later 777-300s and the 380, but it's not worlds apart. But the new 777s will have very different construction, which will likely reduce noise and allow a higher cabin pressure than the current model or the 380, and I understand that it'll have similar air humidification to the 787 (shame it won't have similar air sources, staying instead with bleed air). Given the nature ft he 787 and now the 73 Max cabins, I think it's fairly likely the 777X could be the more comfortable aircraft (if specced out the same way by the airline), but we'll have to wait to find out.

And I do agree with the comments about airport capacity/slots, though I hadn't really considered it before; I had though that crowded routes benefit, but the comments about extended wake separation are true and the overall number pf passenger movements correspondingly suffer.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Lufthansa are probably unique in having operated every Airbus product (apart from, so far, the A350) and everything that Boeing have built up to and including the 747.
Completely off topic, I once took over management of the computers for a large outfit. The IT director was showing me around a huge and very cluttered machine room. He explained: "Our purchasing policy is very simple, we have at least one of everything." It wasn't the most successful operation I ever worked with.

[DaveReidUK]

And I do agree with the comments about airport capacity/slots, though I hadn't really considered it before; I had though that crowded routes benefit, but the comments about extended wake separation are true and the overall number pf passenger movements correspondingly suffer.

It's not rocket science. An A380 typically needs 6nm between it and the heavy following it, whereas a pair of heavies need 4nm separation. So if, as in the example quoted, the 777 has fewer than two-thirds the number of seats of the A380 then the A380 increases runway capacity (pax/hr). If not, the opposite applies..

[flight_mode]

It's curious how many passengers think they know more about this subject than the airlinesPassengers don't understand the economics that’s is clear, but they do understand their own experience of one aircraft compared to another very well. How much weight that holds with the airlines is another question!

It's currious how many airlines think they know more about passenger experience than the passengers. :p

There is a little difference between the later 777-300s and the 380, but it's not worlds apart.I have to call you out on this, there is a enormous difference between these two aircraft in terms of passenger experience.

[glofish]

I have to call you out on this, there is a enormous difference between these two aircraft in terms of passenger experience.

I take you have flown on both. Me too, and i don't entirely agree.
Whilst the 380 is certainly very comfortable, here's my take.

Noise:
The 380 is extremely quiet. To the point that personally i prefer the drowsing hum of the T7 to the quiet cabin of the 380 in F, where you can actually hear every burp and f@rt of your neighbors.
Most of the time people have their headphones on anyway ....

Windows:
The bigger windows of the 380 are only usable when looking into them in an angle of <30degs, due to their deepness. I prefer the wider angle of the T7.
Most of the time the shades are down by the cabin crew anyway .....

Headroom:
The headroom of the T7 is higher and nicer on the T7 (EK, they put the bunks into the rear). Additionally the cabinet wall is distinctly higher, so you get more privacy.

Legroom:
In C the legroom of the 380 is a funnel. I personally prefer the wider room on the T7.

Seats:
The seats are similar, although the 2/3/2 on the T7 is a nuisance. On the 380 i dislike the offset seating, but appreciate the space for drinks etc.

Service:
In F the service is better on the 380, in C the T7 is better, due to less passengers.

Bar / Shower:
The bar is priceless, however it would be a field day for any hygiene inspector with the galley, then 4 toilets, then the bar.
The shower is nice, but only for flights more than 7 hours. I haven't seen too many passengers use it though ... but in this respect i prefer the 380.

Boarding / Deplaning:
Well, as long as there are two-storey bridges and a disciplined blockage of Y pax to get out first, the 380 is fine. Not many stations obey that though and you get stuck behind 400 rushing xxxxxxxxx .....
I definitely prefer the T7 in that respect.

My very personal verdict: 380 wins, but only by a small margin, there is not a enormous difference.

[notapilot15]

Baggage claim is another aspect where VLAs doesn't do well.

[donpizmeov]

0 x 77x sold in the past 12 months. 8 x 773 sold in the past 12 months. 2 x 380 sold in the past 12 months. 306 77Xs total order so far, 235 of those are for EK, QR and EY. EK own half the total orders. 319 total orders for the 380. Over half of these for EK.
Airlines do not want to drop this amount of coin on an airframe it seems.

The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised. And it is a category F aircraft for takeoff and landing (well anytime the wingtips are not folded). This limits enroute ALTNs. So more ETOPs (or is that LROPs now?)

All three are great aircraft. Orders would suggest that airlines think the cheaper 350s and 787s are a better fit.

[Monarch Man]

The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised. And it is a category F aircraft for takeoff and landing (well anytime the wingtips are not folded). This limits enroute ALTNs. So more ETOPs (or is that LROPs now?)


Don, you know the 300ER is a derivative, and was designed as a 747-200 replacement, the fact is it was so much better than was envisaged it is being used on missions it was never designed to complete. The 380 for all its opulence is a gas guzzler and only truly works when you can get upwards of 80-85% in, with a good % of premium...not upgrades.
The hubris that we all know exists within the largest 380 operator in the world has until now delayed more capacity discipline on routes that don't support the beast.
If ADL ever goes onto the 380, it will most certainly not be payload restricted, it will however lower the margins and most likely reinforce the reality that the 380 is infact a niche airframe with limited appeal.
In my inebriated opinion the 380 in its present form will go the way of the dodo sooner rather than later because its appeal has already passed, glamour and grandeur will again be replaced with pure economics..within reason. The future widebody long haul machines will be predominately twin not 4 engined...even if CASA doesn't agree.

[Mr Mac]

Don / Monarch
SLF and not employed in aviation, other than building airports amongst other things, but a regular flyer with your employer. A380 beats 777 hands down probably by a similar distance that the newer 777 beat your old 330. I would not mention 340 as though the cabin is no better than 330 I do like the old 4 donkeys on some routes.
Now as for all this 777 better than 380 tit for tat I would suggest your employer is very interested in what your First / Business / Economy class passengers think, if they do not want to know our views, why are we constantly asked our views in flight, by e-mail, or once by phone in my case. Everyone you talk to at the Bar or a regular passenger favours 380 due to the points mentioned by numerous posters before me. All of my flying is in Business over 4hrs and the vast majority is long haul with yourselves SQ/LH usually on 747/380/777 A/C and if I can, I pick the 380 EVERYTIME. The only disadvantage is that if travelling with Mrs Mac we have to fly separately as both like window seats ! As for 787 have flown it 3 times with Nippon and QR and to be frank do not like it at all, everything is just a bit too poor quality plastic, bit like any American automobile. That's my two cents worth on those airframes.

As for the move from 4 to 2 engines it has had many economic benefits to all the worlds airlines and the stretching of ETOPS regs has, how shall we say, enhanced this. I still however feel sorry for the crew on a twin, who are going at some stage, to have to deal with multiple engine failure on a dark and stormy night over some inhospitable part of the planet, as I am sure this will happen, but no doubt the insurance actuaries have already factored that in to their quotes.


Keep up the good work
Regards
Mr Mac

[West Coast]

As far as being interested in your traveling experience, sure, but let there be no doubt that economics is a greater concern of airline execs. This evidenced by the sluggish sales of 4 holers when contrasted with twins.

[Andy_S]

But to be quite honest, the slf don't really care about equipment. Maybe as a third parameter, yes, but at the very first comes price and then schedule.

I pretty much agree.

I really don't think very many passengers take a lot of interest in the equipment. The majority of economy class won't even know what aircraft they're booked on until they board it. If you're a business traveller paying out of your own pocket and travelling in your own time then yes, you can fly when you want with who you want, but in most cases business travellers don't have that flexibility. They're time and budget constrained and don't have the luxury of being able to pick flight times and routings that will allow them to fly on particular aircraft types. In my company, you get offered the cheapest flight with convenient timings, and I believe this is pretty common practice.

As to personal priorities, while I'm always interested in the equipment I'm flying on it's some way down my list. Timings, prices and airline (in that order) are all more important to me if I'm paying out of my own pocket.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Flight mode, you can try calling people out on an opinion, but that just marks you as closed minded. You can only "call out" on facts. The reality there is that the 777 is more economical and flexible. But on comfort, many people, though far from all, find the 777 seating in F and J more comfortable than the 380, despite the higher noise level. I certainly do. I can't say I noticed a lot of difference in Y, though the 380 lower deck ablutions are far more pleasant than the 777's. But my point about people saying the 777X cabin won't compete stands - no-one knows what that cabin will be like, so saying that you'd always prefer the 380 is illogical.

[glofish]

Airlines do not want to drop this amount of coin on an airframe it seems.

Everyone is waiting, having placed a lot of orders already.
Waiting for what happens in the ME. They know of the looming problems at the ME3. Once some crisis managers have swept through, a lot of slots for new aircraft will become available, at good prices. I wouldn't order anything now, just wait for the bang in the pit. So this argument is no indicator.

The 773er lacks the legs to carry a useful load longer than 12hr, its payload restricted even on a ADL to DXB! The 77x will improve on this. But Pax will still be loaded like sardines to ensure the seat/mile costs are as advertised.

Isn't it ironic that this argument is constantly held against an aircraft that is profitabel? Maybe the 380 would be less of a guzzler if it was equipped the same way? It is the operator who choses the outfitting and most wanted the 380 to boast more luxury. It turned out that not enough passengers pay enough for it, end of story, end of line.

As for the move from 4 to 2 engines it has had many economic benefits to all the worlds airlines and the stretching of ETOPS regs has, how shall we say, enhanced this.

Bang on.

I still however feel sorry for the crew on a twin, who are going at some stage, to have to deal with multiple engine failure on a dark and stormy night over some inhospitable part of the planet

Well, apart from two incidents where pilot error starved their working twins (Air Canada, Air Transat), i can only recall multiple engine failures/problems with 4-holers! i.e. BA/KLM 747 volcanic ash, so more engines do not protect you more there, and AF Concorde and QF32 where on both occasions the one engine causing trouble infected the other close by and thus not really helping by having fitted more ..... Just saying.

All three are great aircraft. Orders would suggest that airlines think the cheaper 350s and 787s are a better fit.

Bang on again!
And both companies try to stretch their successful design, in order to get an even more economical aircraft. Very logical and legitimate and QED many times, so where's the problem with Boeing doing the same with the 77X?

Airbus does not do it with the whale and i guess they perfectly know why!

[Gonzo]

The A380 wake issues should be mitigated in the future with RECAT, and of course even today there is no wake separation required between a pair of A380s, which is not the case for two Heavies on approach: So the benefits of A380 ops will increase if a critical mass is there, even if just over a period of ten minutes or so.

Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.

[DaveReidUK]

Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.

In fact the A380 now accounts for a tad over 4% of LHR movements, and obviously a bit more than that if we're talking about seat share.

[Monarch Man]

The A380 wake issues should be mitigated in the future with RECAT, and of course even today there is no wake separation required between a pair of A380s, which is not the case for two Heavies on approach: So the benefits of A380 ops will increase if a critical mass is there, even if just over a period of ten minutes or so.

Where did this 1% of LHR traffic figure come from? It's more like 3.5% at the moment, which is a lot more significant.

Great idea at Hounslow international, trouble is, invariably at OMDB we run into wake issues following a super, usually as a result of the perpetual quartering 10kt tailwind all the way down the approach. We normally strike the wake between 500-300 AGL, and it's the cause of numerous weekly GA's.
It doesn't seen to be as much of an issue following a 400 or 777 and bizzarly the worst non 380 wake I suffered from was produced by and A340!

[Band a Lot]

Yes don't count on 4 saving the bacon.

The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic passenger service flight from Karratha to Perth


at Flight Level 310 (31,000 ft). As the aircraft entered cloud while diverting around a large


thunderstorm, there was a sudden and significant rise in the outside air temperature. A


short time later, all four engines progressively lost power and the aircraft was unable to


maintain altitude. During the next 17 minutes, numerous attempts to restore engine power


were made without success until, approaching 10,000 ft altitude, normal engine operation


was regained.




At 2051.43 hours, the crew transmitted a Mayday call advising that the aircraft was passing
FL 190 in an emergency descent, unable to maintain altitude, and heading for Meekatharra.
The purser was then briefed to prepare for a forced landing in approximately 12 to 15 minutes.

[notapilot15]

Doesn't matter if 2 holer is better than 4 holer, airlines cannot fill 450+ seats on many routes every day, unless the owner (state or non-state) ready to subsidize the rest. STC created this myth and every airline manager is struggling to bust this myth.

[donpizmeov]

So true notapilot. 610 pax on board three days ago. 614 on board on the way back.

[PAXboy]

I agree that many/most pax have no idea what machine they are riding. However, when my friend found the SQ experience in PE on a LHR~SIN~SYD was not what she had expected from the advertising, but the return legs were exactly what she expected: She learnt that the T7 was bad and the 380 Good. Same carrier, same cabin. Different experience. That does begin to add up for mature pax who have become more discerning and who share the information with their friends as an integral part of telling their holiday story and showing photographs. Junior pax with less money will always go for the cheapest.

[ORAC]

Well, apart from two incidents where pilot error starved their working twins (Air Canada, Air Transat), i can only recall multiple engine failures/problems with 4-holers! i.e. BA/KLM 747 volcanic ash, so more engines do not protect you more there
Not getting involved in the argument - but one of the classic discussions over 2/4 engines is that having 4 vastly increases the chances of a double failure - having lost one, you have 3 times the chance of another failing (assuming no common cause, which equally applies).

In the example given however, having 4 engines which they were trying to relight, gave them double the chance of getting one to relight over a twin.

Just saying.

[JammedStab]

Running out of gas because you don't have enough on board and have decided to takeoff without any fuel gauges(AC 767) will affect an aircraft from a Cessna 150 to a B-52.

Admittedly, the A330 aircraft may have been more vulnerable based on the situation at the time because of a simpler fuel system in Twins making it easier to pump most of it out prior to discovering that you screwed up big time.

[evansb]

The 1983 Boeing 767 Air Canada fuel exhaustion incident was not caused by pilot error.

[tdracer]

The 1983 Boeing 767 Air Canada fuel exhaustion incident was not caused by pilot error.
Not to derail this thread too far, but technically the pilots contributed by dispatching without an operational FQIS - IIRC that violated the Master MEL. That being said, my co-workers at the time all agreed we'd fly anywhere with those pilots - they'll never make that mistake again, and once the error became apparent, they performed brilliantly.:ok:
But JammedStab's point is that if you takeoff with insufficient fuel to make your destination, you're going to have a problem regardless of the number of engines.

Don, regarding the 777X order book, before the 787 and A350, 300 orders for a wide body two years before first flight would be considered outstanding (and don't forget, a lot of those 787s were sold below cost :*). Given that the 777X is basically sold out for the first few years after EIS, there is little reason to place an order now - better to wait and see how well it actually performs once it starts flying.

[glofish]

610 pax on board three days ago. 614 on board on the way back.

Is that the aircraft that would win hands down in the eyes of a F pax, comparing a T7 and a 380?

No, you will say, and rightly so, because this 2 class 380 was not as well equipped as a 3 class T7 ........

Ahaahhh -> Suddenly it is the company that decides which outfitting on what aircraft operates that route, not the aircrafts fault if it is lacking some luxury, but apparently that argument only counts when the 380 represents the less luxurious version.

I always said that you can fit a shower into a Tupolev, but you might not sell more of them either way, passengers liking it or not.

[172driver]

Look, glofish, I guess we all know that you can outfit *any* airframe with boundless luxury - or not. The points in favor of the 380 are the reduced noise level and the reduced cabin altitude. Both of which do matter on long-haul flights, wether you want to believe it or not. You simply arrive in better shape. And yes, I am in a position to make that comparison (T7, 748 vs A380) far more often than I would like to.

[donpizmeov]

Still has a bar goldfish. Pax not complaining.

[msbbarratt]

The points in favor of the 380 are the reduced noise level and the reduced cabin altitude. Both of which do matter on long-haul flights, whether you want to believe it or not. You simply arrive in better shape.Don't forget the extra space per passenger too. A roomy ride is far more comfortable than being squashed up against one's fellow travelers, and makes everyone simply feel better about the experience.

Quietness, roominess and low cabin altitude were supposed to be attributes of 787 too, but most airlines squeezed in an extra seat and omitted the heavy sound insulation in economy. Result - no net passenger benefit, other than a better cabin pressure.

I think Airbus with A380 and A350 have got the size pretty right - the airlines have been reluctant to squeeze in extra seating, presumably because it really would be taking the piss to do so. With Boeing's products they seem to be able to just about get away with it, so they do. For example, a 9-across 777 is far nicer than the usual 10-across that most airlines fly.

The best sort of business for an airline is regular passengers who are loyal. Providing a superior ride is absolutely the most reliable way of achieving that, especially if the price differential is negligible. Having built up such a business, the airline would be taking a big risk if they renewed their fleet with aircraft that revert to cramped and noisy, for then the only difference left to discern between airlines is price.

In the case of Emirates, they've built a huge business with A380 being a big (and popular) part of that. Swapping A380 for, well, anything else is potentially going to be a capacity reduction and (depending on what was bought) a ride quality reduction too. Both would be unappealing propositions for Emirates and loyal, regular passengers alike.

If the capacity reduction was unavoidable (i.e. no extra airport slots), a 777X would have to be about 33% more efficient than an A380 to generate the same profit per flight as an A380. Sounds unlikely, especially if RR keep improving the Trent 900.

If capacity can be preserved (i.e. slots are available, so two flights can be flown instead of a single A380) then 777X sounds like the wrong aircraft - it'd be too much capacity. Two A350s or 787s would be a better match than two 777Xs. Given that the A350 is reportedly very comfortable and 787s (when fitted with 9-across seating) aren't, buying A350 sounds like a safer bet for Emirates in the round. Unless they're able to persuade Airbus to stretch or pep up the A380.

[notapilot15]

So true notapilot. 610 pax on board three days ago. 614 on board on the way back.
That is one data point. Can all A380 operators can claim the same about all routes every day.

SQ has no plans to replace their A380s with another VLA. MH trying to sell their A380s. AF cannot fill their A380s. Even QR/EY are not super exited about whales.

[glofish]

http://imageshack.com/a/img924/137/gVWfqj.jpg

.... the 380 is extremely profitable, all operators are extremely satisfied, they put 380ies on all possible routes, can't wait for the outstanding deliveries and other airlines are breaking down doors at Airbus to place new orders ;)

[donpizmeov]

MH have got rid of their 777s haven't they notapilot? Why only tell half the story?

Oops, one glofish dummy out of the cot.

[Andy_S]

I think Airbus with A380 and A350 have got the size pretty right.....

Sales of the A380 would seem to indicate that they don't have the size "pretty right"

MH have got rid of their 777s haven't they notapilot? Why only tell half the story?

I think the reasons for that have little to do with desirability of the A380......

[notapilot15]

MH have got rid of their 777s haven't they notapilot? Why only tell half the story?

Oops, one glofish dummy out of the cot.
Glofish answered your concern. It is one thing to retire after serving full useful life, and sitting on the auction block less than 5 years from delivery.

[glofish]

@msbbarratt

If the capacity reduction was unavoidable (i.e. no extra airport slots), a 777X would have to be about 33% more efficient than an A380 to generate the same profit per flight as an A380

I very much advise you go over such numbers before you make a fool out of yourself


@comical don

Malaysia Airlines retired the last 777-200ER and ends the 777 operation after 19 years in service.

I guess looking at the age of the model in question and the years used, this argument is a little silly ……


@172

The points in favor of the 380 are the reduced noise level and the reduced cabin altitude.

on wiki: "One study of 8 flights in Airbus A380 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 6,128 feet (1,868 m), and 65 flights in Boeing 747-400 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 5,159 feet (1,572 m)."[11]

…. And the T7 is comparable to a 744 …… so be careful with such statements
although agree on the noise.

[donpizmeov]

The 380 flies a mile higher. In the smooth air right, with lower indicated airspeed hence quieter. Stop being so defensive. The 777 is a great aeroplane. But a 380 replacement it ain't.

[philbky]

Why on earth anyone is bringing Malaysian into the discussion is beyond comprehension. Even prior to 2014, the airline was a basket case, totally inefficient, over capacitized and a total throwback to the days of national willy waving through the medium of the national airline. Their new CEO, an Irishman from Kerry, may be able to put the house in order, but breath holding is not advised.

[172driver]

@ glofish

so be careful with such statements

Indeed. From Flightglobal:
That formula has changed slightly with Boeing’s announcement at the Farnborough air show that the 777X cabin will “replicate” the maximum, 6,000ft pressure altitude of the 787 cabin, a significant cabin improvement from the 8,000ft maximum pressure altitude of the 777.

Full article here: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-boeing-matches-787-cabin-pressure-in-777x-401712/

[glofish]

Guys, i give you that. The ride (and the bar) are great on the 380.

I just shiver if i read numbers like 33% for a 77X to improve to beat a 380! In aviation even 1% improvement is an engineers nightmare to achieve, so please stay out of dreamland!

As for the cabin. Sure enough the 380 beats the T7. But simply take the average FL of a 380 ULR flight (rough guess 380) and the one of a T7 (some 340) and the 4000ft difference pretty much eats up the psi difference.

Look, the 380 is great, as was the Concorde or for that matter the deLorean. But in the tough business environment only profits count and the sold units tell a story!
As it seems, now even rumoured cancelations from the biggest operator are threatening.

[msbbarratt]

glofish,



If the capacity reduction was unavoidable (i.e. no extra airport slots), a 777X would have to be about 33% more efficient than an A380 to generate the same profit per flight as an A380
I very much advise you go over such numbers before you make a fool out of yourselfFair enough. The point I was tying to make is that what matters most to a business is overall profit. Shareholders don't like profits to shrink, and things like profit/seat means nothing to them. If an airline is making an amount of profit by flying an A380 on a slot constrained route, then replacing it with a different aircraft type has to raise the same (or more) profit per flight otherwise the shareholders get grumpy.

And because of the disparity in seat counts, getting a fully loaded 777X (406 seats?) from A to B has to make you about 33% more profit per seat than flying a fully loaded A380 (544 seats?) over the same route. I simply can't see the 777x achieving that. One can easily see why Emirates, who have some slot constraint problems and fly A380s at quite high load factors on those routes, are keen on the A380, a stretch, and especially a neo.

[donpizmeov]

MSB,

EK is stuck with the 380, and is in trouble if that line ever stops. Only 25% of the PAX carried stay in DXB. When they carry large 380 loads into DXB, they have large 380 loads to carry onwards. Having a hub half way between Europe and Asia makes this work for them. This is why they can use this aircraft to places like MRU, MAN and BHX.
Airlines without such a hub will never be able to consistently fill enough seats to be able to operate large fleets of 380s. In fact order books for anything with more than 300 seats are hurting.
So in reality there is only one airline where the high extra yield would be required to ensure no profit decline. For the rest replacing small fleets really wont make much difference.

[glad rag]

Nothing better than innovation and pushing the boundaries in aviation but I suspect grandfather rules the roost in Chicago

[donpizmeov]

No fair glad rag. The 737/747 was state of art in the 70s. :)

[notapilot15]

When they carry large 380 loads into DXB, they have large 380 loads to carry onwards. Having a hub half way between Europe and Asia makes this work for them.
...
Airlines without such a hub will never be able to consistently fill enough seats to be able to operate large fleets of 380s. In fact order books for anything with more than 300 seats are hurting.

Don

Big assumption is EK A380 loads are always good, which is not true. EY doing much better with fewer seats than EK at DFW. Even a third world carrier like Air India doing better on DEL-SFO with a low density B77L.

It is very easy for competitors to offer a non-stop between Asia and Europe with a smaller WB like B788 or A332. In future even A321NEOLR non-stops will eat into hub feed. There is absolutely no difference for budget Y pax between A380 and A321NEOLR and there is very little premium traffic and even 1-2 rows of 2-2 flatbed will be sufficient.

[donpizmeov]

I see your problem notapilot. You are using made up data. DFW is on a payload restricted but full 777. Try booking a ticket from DXB to SFO this week. Full as a full thing. Loads in the high 90% on the way home. All for much more money and better comfort than your favourite palace in the sky.

Hope this helps.

[nolimitholdem]

It certainly IS interesting, how load factors increase during peak season, and decrease during low season. Well spotted, don.

[donpizmeov]

Come on nolimit. The company made a bit over $2 billion last year. How much did EY and Air India make? And loads were seasonal then as well right?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Sales are sluggish on the 777x at the moment. The market is not good for VLA. Plus the 380 has been around since 08 - ain't seen a 777x in the sky yet.

[notapilot15]

Come on nolimit. The company made a bit over $2 billion last year. How much did EY and Air India make? And loads were seasonal then as well right?

Sure loads are seasonal. Quick glance at EK SFO load factors show monthly load factors between 65%-78%. And SFO is EK's best USA destination. So don't base the argument on one or two anecdotal data points and claim one flight on its way back home had 90% LF.

What others have and EK lacks is capacity discipline.

[donpizmeov]

Notapilot,

Non capacity disciplined company makes huge profit. Your palace in sky...not much.

In other threads you complain that EK has no consistent product between fleets. And now you endorse it. Seems you are never happy.

[notapilot15]

Notapilot,

Non capacity disciplined company makes huge profit. Your palace in sky...not much.

In other threads you complain that EK has no consistent product between fleets. And now you endorse it. Seems you are never happy.
Now we moved on to profits from load factors.

Just like EK PR machine spins couple of full flights as 90% fleet wide load, who knows how profit numbers are calculated.

Hint: Any airline making real profit wouldn't hire Mueller.

Sure I commented about non consistent product because EK has only two types. Should be easy to maintain consistency than an airline with 5 different types and some very old planes.

[north flyer]

don, I have to disagree with you on the $2b profit for the last year, it was just a bit over $4b, they do not include the "payment to owner" as profit.

don and notapilot,As for the load factor, yea, it is important, but it is mostly for show, the yield is the important number.

[donpizmeov]

Would have thought that load factor, yield and profit might be linked notapilot. But that's just me.
North flyer, good point. Well presented.

[notapilot15]

Yields are not good either, EK planning to replace Business seats with Premium Economy. Stay up to date Don, rather than repeating old scripts.