Eyes Only,
Excuse the reply. I realize I said I would let you have the last word, but your last post is hard to ignore. No emotion here, just a practical view of the economics which seem to be elusive for you scientific types.
With regard to the spec figures, do you realize you have made my point for me? Why would CX opt for a 5% improvement in floor area per tonne when you consider the all downsides - which are the inability to carry cargo ULH, the requirement to load a 450+ seater near full in order to make money on all but the highest yielding routes, the requirement to establish another aircraft type, the inability to fly into many of CX's regional Asian ports, etc??? You have not truly addressed the ULH cargo issue other than to write that it is not very important financially
. Similarly, the A380 recession-proofing issue remains unaddressed other than to cite the Singapore/CDG example.
You need to understand that CX looks at maximizing
return on investment in all market conditions before purchasing aircraft. I do not think it bodes well for the A380 when it cannot compete well numerically with an aircraft two-thirds its size that was introduced 3 years before it.
The only way CX will ever order the A380 is as a niche aircraft for slot restricted Euro ports
and/or if it is drastically improved by the -900 model
and/or if Euro regulators lean hard enough with their eco-taxes or other socialist, subversion methods. Face the facts, the airplane is morbidly obese. Engineers (like yourself?) over promised and under-delivered (OPUD) wrt to weight. 234 orders is hardly a resounding affirmation when you consider that the aircraft has no true market competition in its size category.
Despite your attempt to disparage with your early "plastic" reference, I do appreciate the engine history review. I did not know most of what you wrote. However, newer 777s are powered by GE90s, not Trent 800s. I would postulate that the GE90 and Boeing's magnificent raked-tip, wing design are what make the 777 such a difficult aircraft to compete against today.
With regard to RR/Trent and the counter-rotating technology, I would not be proud of the lessons from the Harrier. Those were learned through blood - some of it my colleagues' who fearlessly flew that disastrous design. Along those lines, I would say RR/Trent have a reputation for pushing the envelope too far. I seem to recall the A330 having significant engine issues in addition to those on the A380. Perhaps you can produce examples, but I do not recall GE, PW, or even CFM having similar teething issues in recent years. Also, the Engine Alliance (GE/PW) GP7200 is appearing to be a better engine for the A380 at this stage of the game.
I know you pocket-protector types like to look down your noses at pilots, but many of us are not the "Bakelite" idiots you like to think of us as. When the typhoon flags start flying, the thunderstorms booming, or the piece of crap EADS plastic heap you designed starts tearing itself apart or diving at the ocean, it is going to take a lot more than
"a polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride aerialist" to get everyone on the ground in one piece.
Now you can have the last word...
Cheers,
CXorcist
PS - The -400BCF is not a volumetrically efficient freighter, just ask CX. They do not like them and are trying to pawn off as many as possible as I write. Also, Fred Smith and FedEx will be interested in anything they think they can get their hands on cheaply. You should be worried that they are already eying the A380 for a P2F conversion. Notice their current fleet of retrofitted MD-10/11s, B757s, and B727s. Looking to join those ranks with the A380???