A380plus winglets

[pilotguy1222]

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-airbus-to-launch-the-a380plus/

Sorry, didn't bother to check it after starting the thread.

[springbok449]

Maybe this one will be able to carry the passengers bags....?

Alright I will get my coat....

[glofish]

it's like putting two feathers on the little arms of a T-Rex.

Let it die in dignity, please ....

[atakacs]

Ok is this for real?

If so any chance for a retrofit on current aircrafts?

[J.L.Seagull]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-emirates-in-talks-for-a380-winglets-438319/

[atakacs]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-emirates-in-talks-for-a380-winglets-438319/

Thanks. Seems genuine enough....

The non retrofit is puzzling... And what technology enhancements made this all the sudden possible (vs being part of the initial design)?!

[TURIN]

They could make it even more efficient by chopping the top deck off and losing 2 engines.

......aaaand making it really noisy and uncomfortable. :rolleyes:

[A6EchoEchoUniform]

Wonderful news. I can't wait to hear how many we are buying.

[Schnowzer]

42 apparently.

Wonderful news. I can't wait to hear how many we are buying.

[BlankBox]

... nice website...got this as a take-away...

The optimised cabin layout based on the ‘cabin enablers’ presented at Aircraft Interiors Expo (AIX), allows up to 80 additional seats* with no compromise on comfort: redesigned stairs (a ladder), a combined crew-rest compartment (you get to sleep conjoined to your steward), sidewall stowage removal (since PCs are verboten ), a new 9-abreast seat configuration in premium economy and 11-abreast (fat pax get two but must share knees if needed) in economy.

[Rwy in Sight]

allows up to 80 additional seats

Does that also mean additional evacuation trials must be carried out?

[donpizmeov]

Evacuation tests were carried out with over 800 pax. So still a way to go yet.

[ironbutt57]

whipped cream on dog doo-doo

[Dropp the Pilot]

"World's least profitable airliner, now with added pointy things"

You don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[puff m'call]

Just laugh it's the best way.

The heap of junk won't be around it ten years time and EK if they are still afloat will have a mixed fleet of short, medium and long haul a/c.


Now there's a novel ideas:*:D

[Rule3]

puff m'call

Mate you and I and everyone else in the ME Knows that, however:

Those that must have the biggest, newest, blingiest, fastest whatever are still involved in a Willy waving exercise with the other contenders, in the race to the bottom. The sky taxis being the next joke in Dubai.

[donpizmeov]

Just laugh it's the best way.

The heap of junk won't be around it ten years time and EK if they are still afloat will have a mixed fleet of short, medium and long haul a/c.


Now there's a novel ideas:*:D

B773, B773er, A380......wouldnt this fill your wish? Oh no! Gloie's head is about to explode.

You don't get shares. You don't get pay rises so why do you care? The fleet that best serves staff travel gets my vote. And that little twin can't fill it's seats and fly far enough away from the sand to where I wanna go.
I am however an advocate for the Boeing doing more flying. So let's hope this new folding wing one works a bit better.

[donpizmeov]

Aw a person who still believes he works for a benevolent organisation.

[donpizmeov]

Have you got one for the 77x? Same same. (Please shake head when reading the needful).

[atakacs]

Does this graph look at all sane?
To ANYONE??

Well someone is clearly taking a big gamble... If they manage to have it working props to them!

To be honest as SLF I love the 380

[Dropp the Pilot]

I see those losers at Boeing have just released a new airplane and the tag line is "the lowest operating costs in history for a single-aisle airliner".

What? no shower? no staircase? no petting zoo?

I predict a dismal future for this device.

[donpizmeov]

Boeings “new“ aircraft certainly shows how good their designers were in the 50s and 60s. To still have the same variant being sold today is an incredible feat.
The 737 seems to have more come backs than the Rocky movie.

[ironbutt57]

but it will be a twin aisle with single aisle operating costs

[tdracer]

The non retrofit is puzzling... And what technology enhancements made this all the sudden possible (vs being part of the initial design)?!

Winglets - at least winglets that do any good - change the wing loadings and require significant structural mods. A buddy of mine worked the Aviation Partners winglets that are installed on 757/767. According to him, the wing structural mods needed cost upwards of $1 million per airframe to retrofit and several weeks down time (usually performed during heavy maintenance to minimize the impact).
Winglets are not a bolt-on retrofit...

[ironbutt57]

Winglets - at least winglets that do any good - change the wing loadings and require significant structural mods. A buddy of mine worked the Aviation Partners winglets that are installed on 757/767. According to him, the wing structural mods needed cost upwards of $1 million per airframe to retrofit and several weeks down time (usually performed during heavy maintenance to minimize the impact).
Winglets are not a bolt-on retrofit...

very true that....big job

[aeropix]

very true that....big job

And there's no possible way EK could ever find the time to do such mods, given how little downtime there is in the Dugong fleet, and how rare it is too see even one of them over at the hangars:rolleyes:

[A6EchoEchoUniform]

And there's no possible way EK could ever find the time to do such mods, given how little downtime there is in the Dugong fleet, and how rare it is too see even one of them over at the hangars:rolleyes:


I'm always amazed. I'll fly "my" A380 on a Monday, and then the following Monday I may fly her again and she has 100+ hours on her since the week before. A380 downtime is definitely at a premium at EK, making winglet installs difficult from a downtime standpoint, even if it was an option.

[Flyboy_SG]

They could make it even more efficient by chopping the top deck off and losing 2 engines.

LOL ! Basically a 777/350.

[glofish]

I'm always amazed. I'll fly "my" A380 on a Monday, and then the following Monday I may fly her again and she has 100+ hours on her since the week before. A380 downtime is definitely at a premium at EK, making winglet installs difficult from a downtime standpoint, even if it was an option.

Maybe there are 50 hours of towing time included in the 100+ ......
But if your statement is anywhere near the truth, then to whom do all the 15 to 20 dugongs belong that are stacked in the Northside boneyard? They have not been there 6 months ago and they would have a hard time achieving your 14h+ a day if parked over there half the time. I know it's a Wunderbus, but as i always said, even for this marvel of engineering (or copy of the 25 year old MD12 plan;)) normal laws of physics still apply.

[A6EchoEchoUniform]

Maybe there are 50 hours of towing time included in the 100+ ......
But if your statement is anywhere near the truth, then to whom do all the 15 to 20 dugongs belong that are stacked in the Northside boneyard? They have not been there 6 months ago and they would have a hard time achieving your 14h+ a day if parked over there half the time. I know it's a Wunderbus, but as i always said, even for this marvel of engineering (or copy of the 25 year old MD12 plan;)) normal laws of physics still apply.

A6-EEU last 7 day schedule:

DXB - GRU 13:51
GRU - DXB 14:28
DXB - AKL 15:35
AKL - DXB 16:07
DXB - MXP 5:55
MXP - JFK 8:24
JFK - MXP 6:46
MXP - DXB 5:29
DXB - LAX 15:46
LAX - DXB: 15:59

Total: 118:20

[Instant Hooligan]

A6-EEU last 7 day schedule:

DXB - GRU 13:51
GRU - DXB 14:28
DXB - AKL 15:35
AKL - DXB 16:07
DXB - MXP 5:55
MXP - JFK 8:24
JFK - MXP 6:46
MXP - DXB 5:29
DXB - LAX 15:46
LAX - DXB: 15:59

Total: 118:20

Only 94 other airframes to go.........

[jack schidt]

Honestly, every post regarding the A380 sees a onslaught of handbags at dawn from the haters.

I personally don't know any 380 driver who dislikes the aircraft. I am told that most passengers and Boeing pilots prefer to travel on the A380. I'm told that if Commercial can "fill" the aircraft then it's a good money maker over 7hrs.

Summary, it is once again jealous Boeing pilots whose light twin attitude is brought here to try to give the "mine is better than yours" argument. IF tickets are priced right and the 380 is filled then it's very profitable, blame commercial, not the aircraft for losses.

Have a good weekend

Jack

[Avid Aviator]

Im not an A380 expert, but believe the wing root is over engineered to accommodate a future fuselage stretch. Therefore, I think winglets could be added on, assuming the spar is also over strength?

[Lord Bracken]

Im not an A380 expert, but believe the wing root is over engineered to accommodate a future fuselage stretch. Therefore, I think winglets could be added on, assuming the spar is also over strength?

Yes the wing was designed for the -900 or the higher weight (-800)F.

[Instant Hooligan]

Sorry Jack, Just pointing out that EEU can post the flights of one a/c and call the rest of the fleet hours good. He's delusional, as are the rest who claim we don't have reduced utilization on the 380 fleet.
It's a great a/c and does really well when full but 142 of 'em... Really ??????

Sincerely
Instant (EK but not Boeing)

[OntimeexceptACARS]

In the last week I flew on the A380 for the first time, cattle class, LHR-DXB and DXB-HKT, back to back, the first sector on the big fella (EA donks), the second on the Trip (GE donks).

Having no preference or preconceptions of either, I can make the following unbiased observations:
1. The A380 is a palpably better experience for legroom, shoulder room and just a feeling of more space.

2. Stick your A380plus up your backside, 11 abreast for up to 16 hours? No thanks.

3. The A380 was noticeably quieter during taxi, takeoff and cruise. Both flights were roughly seats near the starboard fans in terms of front/back of the aircraft.

4. I completely get the superior freight lift of the B77W, and am aware that its a better profit tool than the whale.

5. A serious recession would possibly kick Emirates very hard, if they fly half empty A380s. On my flight, as its entering low season at HKT, the DXB-HKT sector was much quieter - wonder if they ship much freight on this route, or if STC regrets cancelling the A350 order after all...

[A6EchoEchoUniform]

Sorry Jack, Just pointing out that EEU can post the flights of one a/c and call the rest of the fleet hours good. He's delusional, as are the rest who claim we don't have reduced utilization on the 380 fleet.
It's a great a/c and does really well when full but 142 of 'em... Really ??????

Sincerely
Instant (EK but not Boeing)

If you're correct, then we should be seeing a reduced number of monthly hours as pilots on the A380 fleet. Fewer airplanes would mean fewer monthly hours flown, right? I'm sure not.

[A6EchoEchoUniform]

A6-EDA 7 day history

DXB - MRU 6:00
MEU - DXB 6:15
DXB - NRT 9:20
NRT - DXB 10:12
DXB - MUC 6:03
MUC - DWC 5:45
DWC - DXB 00:21
DXB - MEL 12:47
MEL - AKL 3:07
AKL - SYD 2:44
SYD - BKK 9:02
BKK - DXB 5:45
DXB - JFK 13:21
JFK - DXB 11:49
DXB - PER 10:25
PER - DXB 10:10

Total 123:08 in 7 day period.

I have picked two random A380's and they're both flying roughly the same hours in a 7 day period. How many more would you like me to pick before you too start to see that in fact A380 fleet hours are stable, if not increased?

[Instant Hooligan]

A6-EDA 7 day history

DXB - MRU 6:00
MEU - DXB 6:15
DXB - NRT 9:20
NRT - DXB 10:12
DXB - MUC 6:03
MUC - DWC 5:45
DWC - DXB 00:21
DXB - MEL 12:47
MEL - AKL 3:07
AKL - SYD 2:44
SYD - BKK 9:02
BKK - DXB 5:45
DXB - JFK 13:21
JFK - DXB 11:49
DXB - PER 10:25
PER - DXB 10:10

Total 123:08 in 7 day period.

I have picked two random A380's and they're both flying roughly the same hours in a 7 day period. How many more would you like me to pick before you too start to see that in fact A380 fleet hours are stable, if not increased?

How many more? The entire fleet...... or would that not prove your point?????????? 2 a/c really????????????



Never mind EEU, you're right the 380 is fine. Everything is golden!

[Hook]

Sorry boys, but what's the point? Why go through the trouble of listing how many hours a whale flies? And for the Tractor guys, why go through the trouble of trying to shoot his arguments down???

We fly them out. We fly them back. Empty or full.

[Emma Royds]

During the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg back in April, Airbus announced various cabin modifications to increase the number of passenger seats on the A380. These included the NFS (New Forward Stairs Option) and the AGSM (Aft Galley Stair Module).

Between now and then, these concepts have failed to gain any traction with A380 operators with STC publicly rebuffing them for EK airframes. Whilst Airbus obviously felt this was a clever concept, their positivity has not been shared by A380 operators.

The whole idea of the A380 winglet seems to be an idea that was hurriedly conceived in time for the Paris Air Show, on the back of the lacklustre interest in the A380 cabin modifications program that was announced back in April.

I recall reading an article from the first day of the Paris Air Show, which has a quote from an Airbus spokesman that stated that the winglet modification was not available for retrofit and STC was quoted two days later talking about a retrofit option. A quick Google search will lead you to the relevant articles if you are interested. You would expect that your biggest A380 customer would at least be well briefed about the finer details of the A380 Plus program, before this concept proposal went public. This does not seem to be the case.

I fly the 777 but I have nothing against the A380, as I enjoy flying on it as a passenger and it goes to the places that I often want to fly to on staff travel which is great. However no matter how full your glass is, the harsh reality is that Airbus continues to witness a drought in new A380 orders and the end of the current order backlog moves slowly closer. As time passes, Airbus has to work harder to create and maintain interest in the A380, as the industry has evolved significantly since the A3XX was even thought of nearly 20 years ago now. There are no new quads in the pipeline from any of the airline jet manufacturers around the globe.

Perhaps the initiative of the A380 winglet is nothing more than a catalyst to keep the A380 in the headlines and to get people talking about the type and especially at the Paris Air Show. Airbus have claimed that the A380 Plus will have a new wing with minor modifications to wing camber and twist with a number of under the skin changes as well. This will all come at a cost and the seriousness of Airbus in delivering this new concept has to be questioned, when their highly tuned PR machine is not in sync with that of their biggest existing and future customer of the type.

[jack schidt]

During the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg back in April, Airbus announced various cabin modifications to increase the number of passenger seats on the A380. These included the NFS (New Forward Stairs Option) and the AGSM (Aft Galley Stair Module).


Between now and then, these concepts have failed to gain any traction with A380 operators with STC publicly rebuffing them for EK airframes. Whilst Airbus obviously felt this was a clever concept, their positivity has not been shared by A380 operators.

The whole idea of the A380 winglet seems to be an idea that was hurriedly conceived in time for the Paris Air Show, on the back of the lacklustre interest in the A380 cabin modifications program that was announced back in April.

I recall reading an article from the first day of the Paris Air Show, which has a quote from an Airbus spokesman that stated that the winglet modification was not available for retrofit and STC was quoted two days later talking about a retrofit option. A quick Google search will lead you to the relevant articles if you are interested. You would expect that your biggest A380 customer would at least be well briefed about the finer details of the A380 Plus program, before this concept proposal went public. This does not seem to be the case.

I fly the 777 but I have nothing against the A380, as I enjoy flying on it as a passenger and it goes to the places that I often want to fly to on staff travel which is great. However no matter how full your glass is, the harsh reality is that Airbus continues to witness a drought in new A380 orders and the end of the current order backlog moves slowly closer. As time passes, Airbus has to work harder to create and maintain interest in the A380, as the industry has evolved significantly since the A3XX was even thought of nearly 20 years ago now. There are no new quads in the pipeline from any of the airline jet manufacturers around the globe.

Perhaps the initiative of the A380 winglet is nothing more than a catalyst to keep the A380 in the headlines and to get people talking about the type and especially at the Paris Air Show. Airbus have claimed that the A380 Plus will have a new wing with minor modifications to wing camber and twist with a number of under the skin changes as well. This will all come at a cost and the seriousness of Airbus in delivering this new concept has to be questioned, when their highly tuned PR machine is not in sync with that of their biggest existing and future customer of the type.

Well done EmmaR, nice to read a post which has well thought out and well wrtitten arguments, some previous posts clearly haven't been the case.

Safe flying to all,

J

[glofish]

@Jack

Honestly, every post regarding the A380 sees a onslaught of handbags at dawn from the haters.

Every post? You sound like Baghdad Bob (M.S.S.) at his best:
"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."


I personally don't know any 380 driver who dislikes the aircraft.

Irrelevant, isn’t it? Pilots loved the Concorde and still ….


I am told that most passengers and Boeing pilots prefer to travel on the A380.

Most prefer to get to the destination they want, at a time they want. There are not many destinations to chose between the two aircraft. Thus irrelevant.
The space, layout and sound level are superior on the dugong, I have always admitted that. But I always added that you can thickly insulate, fit with bar and shower even a Tupolev. Only problem is, it will get heavier and less economic. If the company then still charges the same price, big deal, anyone will prefer the upgraded product. But it has to look green below the beancounter’s line and the boneyard north tells another story.


I'm told that if Commercial can "fill" the aircraft then it's a good money maker over 7hrs (…) IF tickets are priced right and the 380 is filled then it's very profitable, blame commercial, not the aircraft for losses.

Big deal again! The statement is true for any commercial aircraft, isn’t it? It’s when you can no longer price to your liking (or need) or you can no longer completely fill an aircraft, when it shows its commercial capabilities. Airframe is a decision by managers, agreed, but I have since the beginning predicted that the dugong has its very weakness there, due to its layout with 4 donkeys and 4 trunks. It works on certain routes and does not on too many others. The boneyard tells a story again, face it!

Summary, it is once again jealous Boeing pilots whose light twin attitude is brought here to try to give the "mine is better than yours" argument.

Well, no. I rejected the opportunity to fly the dugong and don’t regret it. Furthermore a “light twin” is effectively a compliment, compared to a “overweight quad”. It is not so much the puerile “mine is better” argument, it is the “mine is better suited” one, if any! The boneyard and Darwin both tell a story.

As for the eternal argument saying that you should not care what can you fly, you’re paid the same. Well, for that matter no one should then raise any issue about the perverted sponsoring of the company, or the bloated HQ staff, or Emiratisation or AAR or anything else in conjunction with the absence of a pay rise or profit share. Because unsuited material chosen by management falls into the same category and is just as open to criticism. But funnily enough a lot of the dugong defenders are fervent critics of the above. It’s inconsistent. As long as I have a good look on the boneyard north, I will criticise the dugong and somewhat pity those who look away.

[ruserious]

Dear god, you need to get out more

[Cymmon]

Awwwww, someones tired....

Manchester to Far East via various points In between.

The choices?
A330, A350, A380, B777 and B787.

Business choice, B777 with one airline, A380 with another.
Economy, ONLY the A330, 2-4-2. B777 @3-4-3, B787 @3-3-3, at least the A380 and A350 have leg and arm room..

So for me A380.

[JAARule]

What principles of aerodynamics have changed since the original design that full-size winglets only now make sense on the whale?

[donpizmeov]

The 80m box rule. Winglets back then would have meant reduced wingspan. Do try and keep up JAA.

[Monarch Man]

What principles of aerodynamics have changed since the original design that full-size winglets only now make sense on the whale?

Actually quite a lot, turns out flying around 95 of them more efficiently but less often still won't make any money if they are half full.
Not even being "Super" helps these days as they keep finding a market full of kryptonite.

[HiflierEK]

A6echoechouniform

Can you post the hours flown of an aircraft (3 class) without Crew rest please.

Thanks

[JAARule]

Never heard of the box, Don, that's why I asked the question.

[fatbus]

http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2008_01_30_A380.pdf

80 m x 80 m x80 ' refereed as the 80 m box

[donpizmeov]

jAA this is why the 77x will have folding wingtips. It will be Cat F for takeoff and landing, but Cat E once the wings are folded. This can cause some problems with enroute ATLNs if they have parallel taxyways etc. But once on the ground the same limits that apply to the 380 will not apply once the tips are folded. This is why there is only a limited number of contact gates for the 380 in DXB for example. And why the 380 has limitations on the parallel taxiway taxiing behind aircraft holding short of the runway when a Cat E aeroplane doesn't.

[777-200LR]

Don, are you meaning to say Code E? Code applies to the ground only.

[donpizmeov]

I mean the reason the new winglets work now and not before is that the wingspan needs to fit in the 80m box. The design now allows that. Before it did not.
The 80m rule is why the 77x will fold it's wingtips.
Separation in the air is based on weight. The 748 is a code F but does not need the same separation as a 380. Approach is dependant on stall speed. 380 is Cat C but a 773er is cat D.

[White Knight]

Can you post the hours flown of an aircraft (3 class) without Crew rest please.

Thought I'd have a look through the last few pages and tally the hours up - out of interest.

3 Class, no CRC 380 for the last four and a half days was 62:33 and heading off to Asia just under three hours after I set the park brake back in DXB last night. That's a 13.9 hour per day utilisation...

[Dropp the Pilot]

It's flippin' hilarious that people continue to discuss the A380 as if it is a viable transportation device. Unless Tim Clark truly has the ability to suspend Newtonian physics (as he patently believes), the object lession is simple:

Have 430 passengers pay a price for a ticket and send them to London on a B777. Make money.

Have 430 passengers pay that same price for a ticket and send them to London on a A380. The problem is that these passengers are also travelling along with 100 tons of unnecessary, crack-ridden aluminium. Who pays for the dead weight?

Looking at the order book for this laughable piece of "engineering" it is easy to see that most airline executives still keep batteries in their calculatiors.

[gardenshed]

Dropp,
You can argue semantics if you want, 430 Pax with 14 paying first class price, 76 paying Business and the rest paying economy, will earn more than 6/8 First, 42 Business, and the rest paying Economy fares.
So your argument falls flat there.
At the end of the day it's good on some routes and you have to ask questions on why it operates others. But even the venerable B777 isn't going to make a dime if it's near enough empty.
The bigger problem would appear to be we are not attracting enough passengers.

[donpizmeov]

Well it's 428 on a two class Boeing not 430. So that would be up against a 615 seat two class 380, burning an extra 3.6t per hour. So to an answer your question dropp it would need an extra 35 econ pax on board to pay for the extra weight. The other 150 can travel for free. It's 356 on the three class Boeing vs 517 on the 380 so only 126 traveling for free on that one.
/

[The Outlaw]

Dropp,
You can argue semantics if you want, 430 Pax with 14 paying first class price, 76 paying Business and the rest paying economy, will earn more than 6/8 First, 42 Business, and the rest paying Economy fares.
So your argument falls flat there.
At the end of the day it's good on some routes and you have to ask questions on why it operates others. But even the venerable B777 isn't going to make a dime if it's near enough empty.
The bigger problem would appear to be we are not attracting enough passengers.

I think Dropp's point is valid enough, the 380 will lose a lot more money per tonne/seat mile than a 777 would if percentage load factor in all classes was equal.

I also think Gardenshed has scratched the surface of the problems facing the airline, not only are they not attracting the numbers, its the other factors:

Inflexibility to substitute efficient equipment on routes with reduced passenger numbers.

Reduced yields do to competition, especially from those carriers who recognized the importance of the point above.

Instability in the ME, due to recent events in the GCC, Iraq, Syria, Iran just to name a few.

Inability in management to foresee and prepare for such eventualities, becoming top heavy and a corporate structure that does not allow inter-departmental communication. Mired in government policy which fosters a inefficient office work force.

An operational workforce that has little to no morale due to outdated methods of keeping a workforce productive, happy and efficient. Add to that, pay which has not kept up with inflation - a de-facto pay decrease year on year.

There are many more reasons but I think we all have the picture. The Chinese and Indians want a piece of the action as well so I think you will see increased efforts on their part.

Its sad when you can sum it up in one small sentence: Less ego, less SVP-XXX, more 787/350's, better staff morale.

[White Knight]

C'mon Dropp... A 2 class 777 to LHR? That's my First Class suite up in smoke when I avail staff travel:=

[JAARule]

Thank you, Don, that does actually ring a bell now.
Less beer drinking and more reading Flight International may be necessary to keep up.

[halas]

You are all ignoring the freight yield, just say'n :}

halas

[donpizmeov]

True talk halas.

JAA I think the last 3 to 4 pages of Flight is where all the action is.

[Monarch Man]

Yield..yield..yield.

It's yield that ultimately rules the roost.

The 380, when introduced could command a greater yield, the marketplace has changed, it's therefore no longer able to achieve the yield it did in many of the markets it serves. Physics and politics aside, the order book is the only true barometer from a manufacturing perspective and profits from an airline.
You do the maths.

[donpizmeov]

There you are using logic again Monach. I think the order books for all large aircraft shows where the world is at.

[Monarch Man]

There you are using logic again Monach. I think the order books for all large aircraft shows where the world is at.

Eg Zachery....

[Yorkshire_Pudding]

Well it's 428 on a two class Boeing not 430. So that would be up against a 615 seat two class 380, burning an extra 3.6t per hour. So to an answer your question dropp it would need an extra 35 econ pax on board to pay for the extra weight. The other 150 can travel for free. It's 356 on the three class Boeing vs 517 on the 380 so only 126 traveling for free on that one.
/

Most charges are based on certified mtow of the a/c reg, 777 at 351t versus 380 at 565t is 214t difference, not 100t. Landing charges, airport fees, airways fees, all 60% more. I'm sure handing and catering will be significantly more too. But in 2 class the 380 carries only 43% more passengers, not 60%. I don't think a full 380 carries anymore cargo than a 777.

What about maintenance reserves and costs for the engines? All doubled. The 380 has no recorded resale value. The entire aircraft value has to be written off at some stage on the books (luckily lots are leased).

Further, the 3 class *ULR*380 carries 489, versus 3 class 777 351, only 39% more.

[donpizmeov]

Yorkshire I don't think your three class 777 can lift 351 when ULR due to MTOW problems. Check FABS for places like IAH, DFW etc. The available econ seats have to be reduced by up to 30 seats. There is not much weight available for any cargo once it goes over 11hrs and seats start being reduced a few hours after that. So your 39% goes to 55%. Remember this is the old configuration ULR 380, with Crew rest on the lower deck taking up seat space. The new lower Crew rest configuration has another 28 seats in Y class, so over 60% more.
The 777 out performs the 380 revenue wise on shorter sectors when it can carry max ZFW. The 380 will carry max ZFW to about 15hrs.

[Schnowzer]

The 777 will always be better than the A380; if the 380 carries a 777 load. But.... just in London, where slots are constrained, the 380 provides nearly 20,000 extra seats each week or nearly 1 million seats each year. That is the 380 sweet spot. We don't need as many as we are getting but if used properly they make a lot of sense.

[White Knight]

And of course Yorkshire the non ULR 380s are MTOW 510 tonnes... Precisely for the reason of operating costs!

[glofish]

Interesting times ....

?Done Deal? ? Emirates Selects 787s Over A350s ? StrategicAero Research (http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2017/07/17/done-deal-emirates-selects-787s-over-a350s/)

.... but i guess for some "fans" this must be fake news ....

[donpizmeov]

I think those “fans” are also wishing for the 787. Flying feeder ops in this region isn't for everyone Gloie. Here's hoping you finally have a win.

[glofish]

It's not about winning for me, it's about not losing too much for the company. :ok:

It seems that common sense may pick up around here. Flexibility is the magic word. I have always said that the 4-legged biggies are not only fuel guzzlers, but they are primarily unflexibel, only viable when full or on very few trunk routes. The slightest slowdown hits them first and hard. The 350 would have been a good choice, albeit without MFF with its fat brother not the best choice (same applies to 777/748).
Logic and today's commercial environment cries for flexibility and the proposed Twin-MFF family 787-8/9/10 and 777-9/X represents the best option.

Begs the question why it took (or still takes) so long to go down that road, the road that many have predicted for quite some time now. May i include myself there???

But again, it's not about winning, please, it's about a little bit of commercial common sense and basic physic.

[donpizmeov]

Well fingers crossed for you Gloie.