A380 - the best is yet to come

[BAengineer]

Marketing hype or genuine possibility?. Personally I have a feeling that the bird has flown on any chance for the A380 to be a commercial success.

The head of Airbus' aircraft operations has mounted a strong defence of the troubled A380 super-jumbo jet, claiming its "best years are ahead of us".

Tom Williams insisted the A380's absence from the Farnborough Airshow had nothing to do with falling sales.

It's the first time in more than a decade that the flagship aircraft has been absent from the global showcase.

An Emirates Airline order for A380s earlier this year has helped bolster the programme, but speculation about its future won't go away.

The European aircraft manufacturer, whose wings are made in the UK, has become dependent on the Dubai-based airline to keep A380 production alive.

But one of the costliest aircraft projects ever undertaken has been battling for customers ever since the first plane was delivered to Singapore Airlines in 2007.

Production has been cut several times as airlines shunned the plane due to high operating costs and competition from more efficient, but smaller, rival aircraft. Airbus is expected to make just eight A380s next year.




www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44867749

[Pugilistic Animus]

They should have made it easier to make a freighter version or at least a viable conversion.

[atakacs]

They should have made it easier to make a freighter version or at least a viable conversion.
Most definitely.
The 380 is on the way out. I certainly like it as a passenger but it is not economically viable except for a few niche markets.

[ATC Watcher]

Airbus always has bet on fuel above 100$ and congestion/saturation in some major airports , especially Europeans ones to justify the 380 . . They got it wrong ( so far ) on the fuel price, but congestion is coming , and very fast ..So I will not bury the beast yet..

[Lord Bracken]

Something of a problem when the predicted major market would rather just expand airport capacity at a seemingly endless rate than operate larger aircraft.

[Una Due Tfc]

History will tell us whether the aircraft was 15 years too early or 15 years too late. I’m betting on the latter

[Hotel Tango]

but congestion is coming

A doubling of A380 operations might alleviate runway congestion but will the terminals be able to cope?

[parabellum]

The A380 should never have seen the light of day. Boeing offered Airbus a joint effort which Airbus refused, that was the writing on the wall, Boeing cancelling all their plans for an ultra large long haul aircraft sealed the fate of the A380. It commanded, at best, a small niche market for a few of the major carriers on certain routes. Passengers like it but that alone doesn’t make it a commercial success. Possibly intended as a B747 replacement but the B747 had already been replaced by a number of both Boeing and AirBus big twins. Quite significant is the fact that right now there is no apparent market for the 10 year old airframes that are coming up for disposal at the end of their lease period. (Put most of this on Pprune years ago, wasn’t believed though!)

[ATC Watcher]

A doubling of A380 operations might alleviate runway congestion but will the terminals be able to cope?
Maybe not in the short term , but on the other hand it is far easier and much quicker to build an extra terminal and an apron than an extra runway .

[glofish]

A doubling of A380 operations might alleviate runway congestion
This sounds nice on paper, but .... It might work if only 380ies would operate from these runways. But as DXB shows, a mixed operation with 737, 320 and smaller needs greater separation due to wake-turbulence of the supers. Even heavies need more separation from the behemoths. DXB during rush hour has a steady and very healthy mix of S/H/M and sometimes L aircraft. The result is some painful waiting for TO or LDG and i reckon a haul of more or less the same amount of total pax per hour as without the supers. At least not that much of a spectacular increase worth more supers.
I guess that no airport would go down the road of super and heavy only. They might improve the situation if they dedicated one runway for the biggies and another one for the rest, but even this would face some huge organisational problems not worth more supers.

[PAXboy]

Airbus were ALWAYS going to build it - alone. The men at the top just HAD to build something bigger than Boeing. It's the way humans work. On a more practical note, Heathrow will be delighted as it's the only way to get easy extra capactiy. Especially since R3 will never be built. {Tosees hand grenade over shoulder and leaves the bar ...}

[SeenItAll]

The problem with the "alleviating congestion" story is that nearly every airport has far more short-haul flights than long-haul, and far more flights on sub-200 seat airplanes than supra-200 seat airplanes. Therefore, the A380's ability to alleviate congestion is very limited. It is just not economic to operate on short sectors -- and most long-sector routes (aside from NYC-LON and a few others) don't support multiple dozen daily frequencies that would be a prerequisite for the A380 to be both economic and to make any dent in congestion. Consolidating 3x773s into 2xA380s on a route isn't going to move the congestion needle.

[RufusXS]

They should have made it easier to make a freighter version or at least a viable conversion.

As I understand it, the A380 has much more volume than the weight it could lift in a cargo configuration with typical cargo loads, so what would a freighter version of it look like? Bigger engines in order to take advantage of more of it's copious volume? Also there's the question of airport infrastructure at places where manufacturing takes place, which aren't necessarily the big passenger hubs.

It seems like it's fundamentally a bet on the hub and spoke model for passengers, and was designed accordingly, which to some degree excludes its use as an efficient dedicated freighter.

[4Greens]

Twin engined aircraft are much cheaper to operate and have the same or better range than four engine models. Bye bye 747 and 380 aircraft.

[BAengineer]

Maybe not in the short term , but on the other hand it is far easier and much quicker to build an extra terminal and an apron than an extra runway .

But isn't the direction of travel in the industry to use smaller regional airports for point to point travel. The big hubs like LHR might be congested but the Hub model is dying. I see that even Southend is having a renaissance.

[DaveReidUK]

Twin engined aircraft are much cheaper to operate and have the same or better range than four engine models.

True. But that only matters if it's aircraft-mile costs (as opposed to SMCs) that are important and/or if you want to fly a long way. Which, admittedly, is the case for many (but not all) markets.

If there were no routes on which the A380/B748 had better economics, everyone would just have bought 777-300ERs instead.

[golfyankeesierra]

And what about wake turbulence separation, longer runway occupancy times, slow taxispeeds, limited routings, it doesn’t increase efficiency....

[msbbarratt]

Who knows what the future may hold. It's interesting that Emirates decided to buy more airframes rather than see it go out of production, so there's at least one major customer who believes in it. And having ridden it as a paying customer, I can fully understand why Emirates likes it. It was a totally full flight, and it was excellent. Had RR engines too which was nice, but I'm biased...

Time will, of course, tell. There's some studied opinions here and there that suggest that a properly optimised, NEO version would have very good economics provided you could fill it. However it's clear that buying A380 requires the customer to have been taking very large brave pills; buying big is a once-in-a-lifetime bet. Perhaps when (if?) the world economy gets properly back into the swing of things... Anyway, I suspect that if an A380neo turned up operating in competition on your most profitable long haul route, you'd soon be waving goodbye to your passengers. That kinda happens now with the A380 as it is today.

Personally speaking I hope that it does succeed in the long run. It's not reasonable to call it a failure at the moment, even if you do take a one-model-at-a-time approach to company accounting. Has Airbus made a profit out of it? Likely not. Has Airbus got endless free marketing out of it (for it's luxury, passenger popularity, etc)? Oh yes. Have they re-used a lot of the engineering on other models? Yes.

Regarding the public popularity of it, when an aircraft is so good that my aged mother knows what it's called and makes flight purchasing decisions based on who is operating it, then that aircraft has made a deep impression on the public. Nothing else in the sky has ever done that! I'd also heard that Emirates a while back had to replace their 777 service Manchester-Dubai because no one was buying tickets for it; they were all buying tickets for the other two services of the day which were A380.

Maybe that's why Emirates are so keen to keep the production line going. They know that if they stop operating A380s and replace it with something inferior, their passenger share will likely suffer.

[etudiant]

If memory serves, the 747 was similarly an aircraft that sold poorly during its first decade. If that precedent holds true, the 380 should see a resurgence, perhaps in another couple of years.
Real challenge is whether Airbus is prepared to invest in a stretch, which would be the next logical step.
Imho, the gating item is the ground processing, not the market demand. We need to be able to process a planeload of passengers instantly, rather than serially.
Boarding procedures that date back to the age of sail need to be brought up to date if aviation is to step into the future.

[BAengineer]

Regarding the public popularity of it, when an aircraft is so good that my aged mother knows what it's called and makes flight purchasing decisions based on who is operating it, then that aircraft has made a deep impression on the public. Nothing else in the sky has ever done that! I'd also heard that Emirates a while back had to replace their 777 service Manchester-Dubai because no one was buying tickets for it; they were all buying tickets for the other two services of the day which were A380..

I think you are in a minority there. In my experience most PAX have no idea what aluminium tube they are sitting in and decide on their flight by looking to see who has the cheapest ticket on Priceline.com and hit that button.

[mrdeux]

I went to a briefing with ATC from Heathrow. The most common aircraft there is the A320/737, and they said that the 380 had the effect of reducing the airport capacity because of the extra spacing that they were required to put into the approach paths.

I fly the 380, and whilst I like it, it's quite obvious that it was an Airbus/Boeing pissing contest, and little more.

[tdracer]

If memory serves, the 747 was similarly an aircraft that sold poorly during its first decade. If that precedent holds true, the 380 should see a resurgence, perhaps in another couple of years.
Apples and oranges - when the 747 entered service in 1970, it was only expected to sell 200 units - TOTAL - and it was something of a surprise to Boeing that it sold as well as it did. The market was a small fraction of what it is today - the total worldwide jetliner production in the 1970s is dwarfed by just the 737 (or A320) production today. And even then, Boeing delivered ~700 747s in the first 15 years of service.
What really made the 747 popular was the -400 model - nearly half of all 747s produced were 747-400/400F. A big selling point for the 747-400 was it's range - basically if you needed the range of a 747-400, you had to have a 747-400, even if you couldn't fill it. Today, there are numerous twins that match the range of a A380/747, so they only make sense if you can fill them on a regular basis.
The A380 has been awash in red ink since it was launched - most A380s produced to date cost more to build than they sold for - and that's not going to improve with the planned 8/year production rate. Forget about ever making back the tens of billions in development costs...
True. But that only matters if it's aircraft-mile costs (as opposed to SMCs) that are important and/or if you want to fly a long way. Which, admittedly, is the case for many (but not all) markets.
But the new twins (787/A350/777X) have seat mile costs as good or better than the A380.
I've flown on the A380 and loved it - I fully understand why it's very popular with passengers in general. But it's not popular with the bean counters.

[glofish]

I went to a briefing with ATC from Heathrow. The most common aircraft there is the A320/737, and they said that the 380 had the effect of reducing the airport capacity because of the extra spacing that they were required to put into the approach path.
That's consistent with what i posted earlier in the DXB case. These two airports handle the biggest 380 traffic.
Reality invalidates the argument of increasing hub capacity with the 380!

[Monarch Man]

That's consistent with what i posted earlier in the DXB case. These two airports handle the biggest 380 traffic.
Reality invalidates the argument of increasing hub capacity with the 380!

A chum in DXB ATC told me this about 9 years ago, hence the ongoing “trial” of reduced wake etc etc, which even when they chunk 380 arrivals is viewed as less than optimal from an ATM perspective. Recently I spoke with a tower controller who advised that on departures they can depart 5 x 777s in the time it takes to depart 2 x 380s and the have another heavy ready to go behind.
Great pax experience, the shower in my view is gimmicky as every decent lounge has a shower these days etc.
Its not done yet, but it is on the downhill slide in terms of new markets.

[ImageGear]

Most comfortable, smooth and quiet aircraft I have flown on for 50 years, I am sure that people are paying,, and will continue to pay, the premium necessary to fly this bird. Now if only they could get one into Georgetown, cruise liners dump 15,000 people on the dock every day, so why not extend the runway into the sea and bus a few hundred in by air - now I'm getting really selfish.

There is no doubt that the likes of Emirates and other significant fleet owners of A380 continue to hoover up large numbers of b*ms on seats from other operators. Now, our Willy has many faults but he definitely has a future eye for what works from a business perspective, hence the rumors of another buy although a "stretch" might be a bridge too far. :=

Still not firmed up though: BA A380 rumours (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-19/airbus-is-said-to-be-in-talks-with-british-airways-on-more-a380s)

IG

[DaveReidUK]

I went to a briefing with ATC from Heathrow. The most common aircraft there is the A320/737, and they said that the 380 had the effect of reducing the airport capacity because of the extra spacing that they were required to put into the approach paths.

Strange. The steadily increasing number of A380 movements at LHR over the years hasn't resulted in any reduction in the numbers of either flights or passengers that the airport has handled.

Something doesn't quite add up.

[surely not]

Out of the Middle East in the summer months the B777 and A330 suffer significant payload restrictions due to high temps adversely affecting engine failure at take off figures. To overcome this the airline can either restrict payload or change the schedule to a cooler part of the day/night, both of which affect the transfer feed.

The A380 doesn't have the same issues and can still operate at capacity.

It will be interesting to see if the 2nd hand market for A380 attracts a charter operator who utilises the full 800+ capacity. That might make quite a difference. One A380 instead of 4 x B737/A320. It isn't unusual to see 3 or 4 operators operating the same route at a similar time. Could one operator of an A380 take the prize?

[rog747]

If memory serves, the 747 was similarly an aircraft that sold poorly during its first decade. If that precedent holds true, the 380 should see a resurgence, perhaps in another couple of years.
Real challenge is whether Airbus is prepared to invest in a stretch, which would be the next logical step.
Imho, the gating item is the ground processing, not the market demand. We need to be able to process a planeload of passengers instantly, rather than serially.
Boarding procedures that date back to the age of sail need to be brought up to date if aviation is to step into the future.

re the 747 early sales, once the PW engine probs were sorted out after the 2nd year of Ops 1971 the 747 was ordered by almost every legacy airline in the world and 200B models plus the option of RR and GE engines came along PDQ
initial sales were not that bad but the project did almost break Boeing as we all know

the 747's size and weight at first caused airports to have to get ready to receive 747's so perhaps AB should have stayed their design on the same platform as the 747 thus its route availability would have been the same as the Jumbo

[rog747]

Out of the Middle East in the summer months the B777 and A330 suffer significant payload restrictions due to high temps adversely affecting engine failure at take off figures. To overcome this the airline can either restrict payload or change the schedule to a cooler part of the day/night, both of which affect the transfer feed.

The A380 doesn't have the same issues and can still operate at capacity.

It will be interesting to see if the 2nd hand market for A380 attracts a charter operator who utilises the full 800+ capacity. That might make quite a difference. One A380 instead of 4 x B737/A320. It isn't unusual to see 3 or 4 operators operating the same route at a similar time. Could one operator of an A380 take the prize?

once upon a time from the early/mid 70's IT charter airports like Palma Tenerife Faro Ibiza Las Palmas etc were all seen with large WB jets seating 300/350/400
Laker Finnair and Condor DC10's then MD11's of LTU and Finnair
LTU Court and British Airtours Tristars
BOAC Condor KLM Scanair Aer Lingus Sabena Martinair 747's
A300's Germanair Laker Karair Monarch and many more
767's Britannia and Braathens from 1984

now these airports rarely see many WB holiday jets - TCK Jet2 and TOM/BY in UK still send their big stuff out short haul in the summer but not may EU airlines have WB charter jets

all we see now is lines and lines of 320 family and 737's plus EMB's plus a few 757's

not many of those airports except Palma has seen an A380 as yet afaik

[TURIN]

I think you are in a minority there. In my experience most PAX have no idea what aluminium tube they are sitting in and decide on their flight by looking to see who has the cheapest ticket on Priceline.com and hit that button.

You need to expand your experience, everyone I talk to gets very excited about flying on a 787 or 380. The public are quite savvy and the general knowledge of the superior comfort on the 380 is well known.
Personally, given the option I will always get on a 380. the ride alone is enough, but the peace and quiet is a game changer. I flew on four aircraft types within 24hrs on a trip to Oz last year. 320, 380, 777, Dash 8. the 777 was by far the worst. Bumpy ride, rattley and noisy. All the nay sayers here are either Airbus phobic or Boeing employees.
The 380 is a terrific aircraft. It will be around for a long time. Celebrate it.


PS. Yes, Emirates operate 3 x 380 per day from MAN to DBX and they are full most days.

[5711N0205W]

I have just booked a return trip to Aus (from the UK) and choice of A380/350 for the route was one deciding factor. 777 is on my avoid if possible for long haul list.

[Monarch Man]

I have just booked a return trip to Aus (from the UK) and choice of A380/350 for the route was one deciding factor. 777 is on my avoid if possible for long haul list.

Which makes you different to 95% of the travelling public who book based on price, schedule and reputation, very few book based on aircraft type.
Without fail theses threads descend into mine is bigger than yours arguments, if that fits your world view then perhaps you should review the facts regarding how many 380s are in service v 777/A350/787/ A330.
If the best is yet to come, quite frankly I will be astounded.

[WingNut60]

Out of the Middle East in the summer months the B777 and A330 suffer significant payload restrictions due to high temps adversely affecting engine failure at take off figures. To overcome this the airline can either restrict payload or change the schedule to a cooler part of the day/night.........


That's an interesting perspective.
I wonder what that does to the QANTAS 787 flights out of Perth direct London in the middle of summer when PER is 42 deg in the water bag.

[donpizmeov]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/09/10/4E0DEAB400000578-5933123-image-a-17_1531127953615.jpgThe highest hourly earner is Emirates. It made $25,308 (£19,000) from the London Heathrow to Dubai route


The above, a cut from an article about the 10 highest earning airline routes in the world, would tend to debunk the “not economical to operate" argument in this thread. All DXB - LHR - DXB flights are 380 operated.

[WingNut60]

The highest hourly earner is Emirates. It made $25,308 (£19,000) from the London Heathrow to Dubai route
.

I'd like to see that expressed as Return on Investment.
It does not look like something that I'd be investing in.

[Una Due Tfc]

Strange. The steadily increasing number of A380 movements at LHR over the years hasn't resulted in any reduction in the numbers of either flights or passengers that the airport has handled.

Something doesn't quite add up.

There’s ways and means of reducing or negating impact. After an A380 effectively closes a departure runway for a few minutes after taking off, let an arrival in on it, or if arrival runway is outboard of departure runway, stack up the crossing taxiways and let them all cross after the 380 departs.

[BAengineer]

It will be interesting to see if the 2nd hand market for A380 attracts a charter operator who utilises the full 800+ capacity. That might make quite a difference. One A380 instead of 4 x B737/A320. It isn't unusual to see 3 or 4 operators operating the same route at a similar time. Could one operator of an A380 take the prize?

God I hope not. Can you imagine the scenes when your 380 goes sick at some tiny holiday airport like Chania or Rhodes and 800 people are stuck there.

[er340790]

Twin engined aircraft are much cheaper to operate and have the same or better range than four engine models. Bye bye 747 and 380 aircraft.

I wouldn't be so hasty to write off the 747-8F just yet. I suspect the Big Bird will still be flying around in some form long after most of us have shuffled off this mortal coil. I was at the Everett plant last month and the integration of the 747F & 767F lines was most impressive. If Boeing can keep the 747 line going this next 24 months (and it looks like they can), the medium-term economic outlook for large freighters looks pretty rosy... certain politicos notwithstanding. :ugh:

[Andy_S]

In my experience most PAX have no idea what aluminium tube they are sitting in....

That’s my view as well.It’s self-evident that anyone who reads and contributes to PPRuNe has a bit of knowledge about airlines and aircraft so it should come as no surprise that we’re all interested in the metal we fly on. But I’ve seen little evidence that the average traveller knows or is even particularly bothered what aircraft they will be boarding.

Furthermore, how many passengers actually have complete freedom over flight selection? The majority of tourists will simply be booked on a flight selected by their tour operator. Most business travellers will be subject to a company travel policy.

Personally speaking, the most important things for me when travelling are convenient flight timing, price and airline, in that order. Aircraft type is of interest to me, but there’s no way I’m going to put myself to any inconvenience or pay over the odds just to travel in the 380.

[DaveReidUK]

There’s ways and means of reducing or negating impact. After an A380 effectively closes a departure runway for a few minutes after taking off, let an arrival in on it, or if arrival runway is outboard of departure runway, stack up the crossing taxiways and let them all cross after the 380 departs.

True.

But neither of those strategies is routinely adopted at Heathrow, and yet the introduction of the A380 has still not led to a reduction in capacity.

[EastMids]

The fundamental problem for the A380 is that it will always be more of a financial risk unless an airline can guarantee to fill it consistently (year round) at reasonable yields. There are some routes where filling them is possible, for sure, which is where the A380 reigns. But on any given trip, an A380 will burn more fuel (and thus cost more to operate) than a 777 / A350 / 787. With seat mile (cost per passenger per mile) not that far apart, that's fine if the A380 is consistently full. But in a lot of cases it's easier to sell 300-350 seats than it is 500. Increasingly with sophisticated revenue management operating in the background airlines will chose take fewer passengers at good revenue and turn away the cheapest business, rather than discount heavily to fill another 150-200 seats or fly thin air around.

So it boils down to:
* Can I make a profit flying an A380 - probably yes if I can fill it at reasonable yields
* Can I make a profit flying a 777 / 787 / A350 - probably yes if I can fill it, which is less of a challenge
* Can I make more profit flying a full 777 / 787 / A350 than a I can flying 2/3rd full A380 - quite pobably
* Can I make more profit if I have to deeply discount to fill the extra seats on an A380 - possibly not

Therefore in many cases bean counters see the 777 / 787 / A350 as lower risk, and potentially more profitable. Even as airport constraints get more severe some airlines will chose to keep a lid on capacity and leave behind the really cheap business they would sometimes need to fill an A380.

[PAXboy]

I agree that most folks have no idea what tube they are in BUT a friend of mine who works for an international travel agency said that, when dealing with the high paying customers - they knew the aircraft. She quoted clients who wanted the 380 for all the positive reasons stated above.

[sudden twang]

777 300 is dreadful in turbulence.

[Bergerie1]

sudden twang,

How do you know?

[ATC Watcher]

Monarch man : Recently I spoke with a tower controller who advised that on departures they can depart 5 x 777s in the time it takes to depart 2 x 380s
Nonsense statement as the separation between 2 777s is exactly the same as betwen 2 380s, so it will take exactly the same time to depart 5 777 and 5 380s. It is the weight category mixture, and especially a light after a 380 which is penalizing.
But if you apply the new RECAT separation ( like they do in CDG) together with better aircraft category grouping per runway , the Supers have minimal impact.

[FlightlessParrot]

I think you are in a minority there. In my experience most PAX have no idea what aluminium tube they are sitting in and decide on their flight by looking to see who has the cheapest ticket on Priceline.com and hit that button.

Possibly most PAX don't know much about their aircraft, but I have definitely known some people who could not be called aviation enthusiasts who have deliberately chosen to book on flights operated by the 380; just as long ago, people noticed and chose the 747. It's probably not enough to ensure the commercial viability of the aircraft, but it's a mistake to assume everyone is happy to be crammed into a 737 to save a few bucks.

[Volume]

The other fundamental problem for the A380 are the airports. Not so much the runway/taxiway/ramp issues, but the terminal. Many airports (some claiming to be "A380 ready" in a major PR campaign...) simply can not handle 500+ passengers at one time. Not at security, not at immigration, not at the baggage claim, not for boarding. As much as I love to fly the A380, I hate getting on and off. AirFrance for example flew the A380 to YUL for a short period, now they do the service again with two 777/A340/747 within 90 minutes. Immigration at YUL for a full A380 passenger load was just awful. With no airbridges for the upper deck, business class was off the aircraft after economy, putting those who produce the profit at the end of the cue... Those passengers know the aircraft they fly very well, and react accordingly.

[kcockayne]

The other fundamental problem for the A380 are the airports. Not so much the runway/taxiway/ramp issues, but the terminal. Many airports (some claiming to be "A380 ready" in a major PR campaign...) simply can not handle 500+ passengers at one time. Not at security, not at immigration, not at the baggage claim, not for boarding. As much as I love to fly the A380, I hate getting on and off. AirFrance for example flew the A380 to YUL for a short period,now they do the service again with two 777/A340/747 within 90 minutes. Immigration at YUL for a full A380 passenger load was just awful. With no airbridges for the upper deck, business class was off the aircraft after economy, putting those who produce the profit at the end of the cue... Those passengers know the aircraft they fly very well, and react accordingly.
You would have a hard job flying on an Air France 747 to anywhere - they do not have any ! They retired the last one at least 2 years ago.

[rog747]

God I hope not. Can you imagine the scenes when your 380 goes sick at some tiny holiday airport like Chania or Rhodes and 800 people are stuck there.

Rhodes already handles for many years 747-400's daily, mostly the russians and around 500 pax on an a/c - not sure if the airport can handle yet a 380 with its weights and sizes - but Transaero were getting 380's so maybe their use on IT's to the Med and possibly Egypt before metrojet were in their game plan
Rhodes has plenty of large hotels and AOG Hotac should not often be an issue -
we used to say that back in the 70's and 80's when the first WB's were sent to Palma etc

small places like Chania would not likely see 380 Ops - although Btours KT/CKT and Monarch went there with WB jets
tristars and A300's 400 and 361 pax

I think Las Palmas and maybe Tenerife from Scandinavia is def a contender for high season big capacity needs and a 380 may be a good 'fit'

[Monarch Man]

Monarch man :
Nonsense statement as the separation between 2 777s is exactly the same as betwen 2 380s, so it will take exactly the same time to depart 5 777 and 5 380s. It is the weight category mixture, and especially a light after a 380 which is penalizing.
But if you apply the new RECAT separation ( like they do in CDG) together with better aircraft category grouping per runway , the Supers have minimal impact.

Incorrect ATC watcher, I suggest you go back and look at the separation applied in practice between 777s in DXB on departure vs a Super they are two ENTIRELY different values. In practice when I’m rotating in my 777, the 777 behind me receives a takeoff clearance, and so on and so on, diverging SIDS are planned so one turns left, the next turns right, the limitation is the 90 degree line up.
It is part of the on-going reduced wake trial, which in my view is a fudge. As for your comment regarding RECAT as per CDG, you clearly have little idea as to how OMDB is run, and given it sees a significantly larger number of 380 movements a day than CDG, or elsewhere for that matter it has far more relevance to discussions on airspace and runway capacity.

[ATC Watcher]

Monarch man : you clearly have little idea as to how OMDB is run
Yes my area of knowledge is more European I grant you that, but the UAE surely follows ICAO, no ? although ICAO and RECAT are just giving minimas , each state or airport can increase those depending on the circumstances. maybe OMDB does this or apply something exotic like your description of the reduced wake trial (*). You said at rotation of the elader the follower is receiving T/O clearance ; that would be what , 40-50 seconds separation ? That is impressive.

For Europe the A380 is a CAT A and the 777 is Cat B. The separation minima between 2 CAT A is 3 NM , and between 2 CAT B also 3 NM, mixing categories is the problem not between same types. hence my earlier comment which I maintain.

(*) under the name trial one can do almost anything .and blame someone else if it goes wrong .(Al Wiener if my memory is correct )

[donpizmeov]

ATC watcher. The same numbers are used in DXB. 380 departing behind a 380 is the same as when those smaller aeroplanes depart behind another smaller aeroplane . As you said

[Monarch Man]

Don, go back and read again what I wrote, its nothing to do with 380 following 380, its 380 followed by anything else.
ATC watcher, so what? There is and has been a reduced separation trual in effect at OMDB for at least the last 3 years. Don knows that as well.

[donpizmeov]

The trail is between 777 only right? Still 3nm for a 380 to 380 and 8nm between 380 and anything else. With slow approach speed of the 380 a 777 needs to start a bit further out than 8 or start speed reduction earlier as it will catch up when speeds are reduced after 4nm.
Monach you said they could launch 5 777s in the time it takes to launch 2 380s. That's not correct . If mixed departures are happening you are correct the launch rate drops

[911slf]

A380 should have been built with 300 foot wingspan, folding to 200 feet. I see there has been talk of longer wingspan https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/airbus-a380-winglets-bigger-wing-span/

No compromise either on aerodynamics or ability to use the ramps the 747 uses. Engines like that used by 777-300ER. Capacity for 600 passengers plus at least 50 tonnes of freight, or 150 tonnes of freight. Straight to 40,000 feet at maximum take-off weight (perhaps).

Far too late now, though. I see also there is work on reducing wing vortices, though that knowledge was maybe not available when the A380 was designed.

[KenV]

I see also there is work on reducing wing vortices, though that knowledge was maybe not available when the A380 was designed.It's a relatively simple job to add vortex reducing winglets on an aircraft (witness the addition of split scimitar winglets on countless 737) if someone were to take the effort to design them in the first place.

[underfire]

Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10200492#post10200492)
There’s ways and means of reducing or negating impact. After an A380 effectively closes a departure runway for a few minutes after taking off, let an arrival in on it, or if arrival runway is outboard of departure runway, stack up the crossing taxiways and let them all cross after the 380 departs.
True.

But neither of those strategies is routinely adopted at Heathrow, and yet the introduction of the A380 has still not led to a reduction in capacity.

When they actually get around to the real time measurement of wake turbulence, you will see a marked reduction in closure times/separation, especially at LHR with the DEP splay.
We were very close to implementation, then FN Brexit.


It's a relatively simple job to add vortex reducing winglets on an aircraft (witness the addition of split scimitar winglets on countless 737) if someone were to take the effort to design them in the first place.

Incorrect, winglets have absolutely NO effect on wake turbulence. Even Aviation Partners stop beating that drum. They extend laminar flow and decrease drag at certain attitudes, that is all.

From Farnsworth:

Boeing's (http://www.businessinsider.com/category/boeing) latest market forecast says global demand for passenger and cargo jets will reach 42,730 aircraft over the next 20 years. The total value of this potential business is an astounding $6.3 trillion.
Boeing expects only 60 of those planes to be passenger jets in the same category as the Boeing 747 (http://www.businessinsider.com/category/boeing-747) and the Airbus A380 (http://www.businessinsider.com/category/airbus-a380).
Randy Tinseth, Boeing's vice president of marketing, believes the 747's future as a passenger plane will be as a VIP private jet.
According to Tinseth, the forecast takes into consideration Boeing's belief that there isn't enough demand for Airbus (http://www.businessinsider.com/category/airbus) to deliver the rest of its A380s on order.

[Parratjie]

I just hope a few of the large Chinese carriers throw the 380 a lifeline. It’s such an amazing aircraft, it would be a shame to see it go!

[RVF750]

I suspect the biggest problem long term for the A380 is it's USP in the first place. The floor beams for the upper deck. That alone plus the placement of the Flightdeck mean it's no freighter and never will be. There are a lot of 10-15 year old B744F and BCF out there, carrying outsized freight the world over. There really is only one option to replace them, and Boeing know it.

A380? Well, they'd make a grand firebomber....

[DaveReidUK]

Boeing expects only 60 of those planes to be passenger jets in the same category as the Boeing 747 (http://www.businessinsider.com/category/boeing-747) and the Airbus A380 (http://www.businessinsider.com/category/airbus-a380).

Boeing are hardly going to be bullish about that market, given that they have more or less abandoned the B748 in its passenger role.

[Sailvi767]

Boeing are hardly going to be bullish about that market, given that they have more or less abandoned the B748 in its passenger role.

I would say the market has already spoken. There is only one A380 operator of significance in the world. Sales are non existent and 10 year old airframes are being scrapped.

[tdracer]

Boeing are hardly going to be bullish about that market, given that they have more or less abandoned the B748 in its passenger role.

DR, I think you need to consider the cause and effect at play - would Boeing abandon the passenger 747-8 if they saw a significant market there?
Airbus thought they could sell a bunch of A380s to replace old 747s - but that didn't happen. Most operators are replacing their old 747s with big twins, not new A380s or 747s.

[ImageGear]

TDRACER

When Boeing produces an aircraft as comfortable, quiet and smooth as an A380, (and I don't mind whether it's a a twin or a quad), then people will fly it out of choice not out of desperation.

PS the 787 does not come close.

IG

[ATC Watcher]

It never stop to amaze me that we are working in an industry where the client ( the paying pax ) has in fact nothing to say but accept what others decide is best for them. and we are supposed to live in a market oriented global business!
Interesting also to see that on routes where the same airline offers different types ( e.g SQ or LH ) the fares on the A380 are generally significantly higher that on the 747 or the 777 as people are apparently prepared to pay a premium for the 380 .

[Trav a la]

I recall reading various articles in which Sir Tim Clark was commenting on the introduction of the A380 into Manchester.

He was clear that the A380 created it's own market share wherever it was introduced, and I think their massive increase at MAN has proved that point. Three per day and each one either full or very nearly. It's the best aircraft I have flown on but I have my next flight booked on the Qatar A350, which also seems to be rated very highly, so it will be interesting to compare the two. The B787's are okay, better than a B767, but you don't leave with the wow factor like you do on the big airbus.

[infrequentflyer789]

It never stop to amaze me that we are working in an industry where the client ( the paying pax ) has in fact nothing to say but accept what others decide is best for them. and we are supposed to live in a market oriented global business!

There was a market for concorde, pretty sure there still would be today, but no choice but to accept subsonic transatlantic these days, no matter what your budget.

It's also not only this industry. Tried to buy a mobile phone with a removable battery recently? I actually want to replace my 4yr old smart phone, in a few months, it's getting a bit slow and starting to struggle with what passes for mobile web sites today and the OS version is now out of support. I have a list of about 6 - 8 features that my four year old phone already has that I want, plus faster processor and more memory, nothing available, even with money-no-issue budget. Take list to phone shop "sorry no one makes a phone like that now", what, "does no one want A B C X Y Z?", "oh yes, but most people don't care".

And that in the end is what will probably do for the A380 - "most people don't care". Sad thing is that it will leave as it arrived, an ugly duckling, which the 900 or 1000 stretches might well have fixed.

[RodH]

I have been flying and passengering around in aeroplanes for a good 55 + years now and I can say categorically that the A380 is the most comfortable aeroplane I have ever been in by a long shot.
So quiet and smooth it is an absolute delight to be a passenger in.
I just hope it keeps being built so that many others in years to come can get as much pleasure from it as I have.
Like so many things it might not look really beautiful but it's sure nice once you get inside!!!
Thanks Airbus for such a lovely aeroplane to fly in.

[winter959]

From a passengers point of view, the A380 is simply the most comfortable plane to fly.
However, didn't Airbus build there own nail in the coffin of the A380 by introducing the A350-1000?

[ImageGear]

...most people don't care

I think that you will find that people are beginning to care much more than they did 5 years ago. So many options exist today to travel the same route on different airlines, especially out of Heathrow and at similar prices, so the differentiating factor will become the comfort, ride and noise characteristics. I have been doing Montreal often over the last 5 years starting on the 777, (it rattles, is uncomfortable and noisy, and performs badly in turbulence) before going to the 787. So uncomfortable that SWMBO and I take real cushions, not blowups, in our hand baggage. The plastic bits rattle and squeak so much its like sitting in an empty milk container, still better than the 777 though. Roll on the A380, (Don't mention AC. :eek:)

IG

[tdracer]

It never stop to amaze me that we are working in an industry where the client ( the paying pax ) has in fact nothing to say but accept what others decide is best for them. and we are supposed to live in a market oriented global business!
What a strange way to look at how the real world works. The open market has stated, repeatedly, that the average consumer is primarily cost driven. So much so that the ultra low cost carriers have grown like weeds - largely at the expense of the 'full service' operators. While everyone likes to blame the bean counters for the decline in service among the legacy operators, the bottom line is that they can no longer operate the way the did a few decades back and stay in business. The bottom line is the typical paying passenger won't pay for full service if a cheaper option is available. The A380 - at least as it is typically configured (I doubt if an A380 configured for 800+ passengers would get the same sort of rave reviews) - is a nice experience for the passenger. Much the same way Concorde was in years past. But precious few paying passengers are willing to pay significantly more for that experience.
Everyone complains about the cramped seats in the 10 across 777 and 9 across 787. If most paying passengers boycotted those operators and only fly on those with 9 across 777s and 8 across 787s, the cattle car seating would quickly go away. But they don't - they may bitch and complain, but they still buy the cheapest ticket.
So the market based solution is cramped, uncomfortable seating and crappy service with dirt cheap prices because that is exactly what the majority of travelers have voted for with their wallets. Most of the people on this form hate it - with good reason - but we are a small minority. Personally, I always check the aircraft type and check it out on seatguru when booking air travel - but my wife doesn't care, she just wants the lowest price so she can spend the money shopping after we get there.

[donpizmeov]

Had a few over 610 pax on board a 2 class 380 to the UK and back last week . The only replacement for a 380 is a newer 380.

[DaveReidUK]

DR, I think you need to consider the cause and effect at play - would Boeing abandon the passenger 747-8 if they saw a significant market there?

No, the question is: would Boeing have abandoned the pax B748 if they saw a market capable of supporting two competitors? Nobody seriously thinks there is, it was just Boeing who blinked first, as everyone expected.

Airbus thought they could sell a bunch of A380s to replace old 747s - but that didn't happen. Most operators are replacing their old 747s with big twins, not new A380s or 747s.

Both parts of that statement are undoubtedly true (and you could equally say that Boeing thought they could sell a bunch of B748s to replace old 747s). But to imply, as Boeing's forecast does, that Airbus are only going to sell an average of 3 A380s per year over the next 20 years sounds awfully like sour grapes.

[Volume]

The open market has stated, repeatedly, that the average consumer is primarily cost driven.
Which probably is the reason why the premium economy has become a big market success, it is simply cheaper than economy class...

The market has demonstrated that if given the choice, people are willing to pay a premium for a better product. If however the product offered is inconsistent and you never know what you really get for your money, then of course everybody opts for lowest cost.
Those airlines who explicitly offer the A380 as premium product have succeded to sell the more expensive tickets.

You would have a hard job flying on an Air France 747 to anywhere - they do not have any ! They retired the last one at least 2 years ago.
You´re right, they switched some of the flights to 787 now. The A340 will soon be history on that route as well.
Anyway, they switched back from A380 to two planes within less than 2 hours, just like they did before there was an A380 available.

Most operators are replacing their old 747s with big twins, not new A380s
Because they do not need the extra capacity. They once bought the 747 for range, not for seats. Now they can have the 747 range with smaller twins, which allows a more flexible and diversive network.
Many even replace their old 747 with 787, not with 77W, as they do not need the size.

The hub concept requires efficient and convenient airports, most major airports of major cities however are very old, and have grown without a real concept behind. If it takes longer to change terminals at a major airport than flying to smaller airport and take a train or car to your destination, many people will do just that. It is not just the airspace or the runways, it is the full aiport infrastructure which prevents the A380 from using its full potential. Only a handful of airports worldwide is truly "A380 ready".
If you operate from an airport with overloaded terminals, you do not make your A380 passengers happy. And if you operate from small efficient airports, you can not fill an A380.

[tdracer]

Which probably is the reason why the premium economy has become a big market success, it is simply cheaper than economy class...

The market has demonstrated that if given the choice, people are willing to pay a premium for a better product. If however the product offered is inconsistent and you never know what you really get for your money, then of course everybody opts for lowest cost.
Those airlines who explicitly offer the A380 as premium product have succeded to sell the more expensive tickets.
What percentage of the seats are "premium" economy vs. regular economy? 20%? How many of those "premium" economy seats are actually paid for (as vs. frequent flyer upgrades?) Personally, if the flight is more than ~2 hours, I'd spring for premium economy - except that I don't need to. Due to my FF status I nearly always get upgraded - which also tells me not that many people are actually paying for it or there wouldn't be room to upgrade me. The market has demonstrated that once they reached the bottom, a few people would pay extra to get off the bottom - but the majority don't.
If the airlines could routinely make more money flying the A380 than big twins, they'd be buying more of them. I can count the number of airlines that have done that on one finger.

[underfire]

If you operate from an airport with overloaded terminals, you do not make your A380 passengers happy. And if you operate from small efficient airports, you can not fill an A380.

This is true for most of operations, you have an 8 lane motorway ending at a 2 car garage.

Given that more runways are near impossible, the capacity needs to be on the ac, not more of them.

While the Lazy B keeps pumping out the 737 series, the miscues certainly have cost them dearly...757, 767, 748, and losing the C Series. The Embraer deal is a bit amusing, but C919 and ARJ21 ill have to be dealt with.
Like imagegear stated, the 787 rattles and squeeks with center overhead baggage acting like a yodlers uvula in even slight turbulence.

[Ian W]

No, the question is: would Boeing have abandoned the pax B748 if they saw a market capable of supporting two competitors? Nobody seriously thinks there is, it was just Boeing who blinked first, as everyone expected.



Both parts of that statement are undoubtedly true (and you could equally say that Boeing thought they could sell a bunch of B748s to replace old 747s). But to imply, as Boeing's forecast does, that Airbus are only going to sell an average of 3 A380s per year over the next 20 years sounds awfully like sour grapes.

I think to some extent it was the other way on. Boeing was pushing for large twins and the extended range of the 787 to support thin routes. That is happening. Indeed Airbus almost immediately generated a 787-like A350 also aimed at thin routes. Both B and A have trouble selling 4 holers and Boeing didn't think that the 74 market would continue but the 748F market is starting to grow,. However, the 380 has the problem of very limited cargo space and no cargo variant. For the bean counters high value freight is very important to the operator's bottom line so even if the pax like it the budget may not..

[KenV]

The point of buying and operating an airliner is to make money. Making money boils down to two points.
1. Most passengers are willing to grit their teeth during their flight in order to pay the least amount possible. To profit in that environment requires operating a twinjet.
2. Airlines also make money moving freight in the belly. To profit in that environment requires a single deck aircraft. Double deckers tend to fill their belly with passenger luggage.

Sadly, as superb as the airplane is, the A380 violates both points 1 and 2.

A lesser but still important point is resale value. Airlines need to be able to sell used aircraft to the secondary market at a reasonable price. That means freighter conversions and high density versions for charter operations. There is no freighter conversion and it is unlikely that a high density version of the A380 can be filled. Right now 10 year old A380s have more value as scrap than as airliners. This may change as later build A380s reach their 10 year point, but this is far from certain.

And even assuming charter operators could fill high density A380s, how many terminals could handle 800+ people disembarking from a single aircraft? And will 800+ people's luggage fit in the belly or would the airline have to restrict the amount of baggage a passenger could take with him/her?

So much like the Concorde which was an engineering marvel, the realities of the market means the A380 (like the Concorde before it) operates in a niche. There's not a lot of profit in niche markets and what profit there is seems to have been mostly captured by a single operator, Emirates. And note that Emirates operate from a huge terminal dedicated exclusively for the A380. Could any airline anywhere duplicate such a terminal? And yes, Emirates operates a whole bunch of A380s, but they ALSO operate even more B777 (indeed they are the largest operator of the B777-300ER) and have ordered hundreds more. So even in the rarified world Emirates operates in, they're buying more B777 than A380. So not even Emirates can make as big a profit flying A380 as they can flying B777, else they'd buy and fly more A380 and less B777.

[sandiego89]

.... I flew on four aircraft types within 24hrs on a trip to Oz last year. 320, 380, 777, Dash 8. the 777 was by far the worst. Bumpy ride, rattley and noisy.....

Your 777 ride was more "bumpy, rattley and noisy" than your Dash 8 ride???? Were you in the engine nacelle? :)

[20driver]

As some have pointed out here, at one time the airlines used wide bodies , DC-10 etc on domestic and holiday routes. They have all switched to narrow bodies. Load, frequency and turn around mean better economics and money rules.
What is interesting is Atlantic traffic is going the same way, see Norwegian and Primeria.
I haven't flown the A380 but everyone I know who has loves it. But then people loved the Concorde, even with the cramped seating.
The good thing is, smaller planes = more jobs for pilots !

[Sailvi767]

As I said in another post. The market has spoken on the A380. The last Emerites order for 20 airframes will most likely be replacement aircraft for some of their older A380’s. They placed their order to keep the production line open and preserve the resale and current book value of their A380’s airframes. If the production line closes the value of existing airframes plummets. It’s pretty low already.

[rog747]

i wonder what BA will do? their 380 fleet (13?) is now quite niche

the config is F14 C97 W55 Y303

stay with 777 787 and now 350's?

the 767's are almost gone and now 3 leased 773's have been taken to replace the oldest trio of GE90 non ER 772 a/c

always amazed me that the likes of BA VS KL SA ANZ CX and QF did not go for the 747-800 and get Mr B to give them a very good deal and maybe take their 744's in return

[Akrapovic]

always amazed me that the likes of BA VS KL SA ANZ CX and QF did not go for the 747-800 and get Mr B to give them a very good deal and maybe take their 744's in return

Not me. The -8's are hugely expensive. Twin-engined widebody's are the future. . . .

[Turbine D]

The Denver International Airport Authority isn't undertaking a multiyear expansion, adding 39 new gates for pending arrivals of Boeing or Airbus jumbos, but it does give good indication which direction airlines are headed in terms of aircraft sizes...

[richardwpprn]

i wonder what BA will do?...

It wouldn’t surprise me if IAG are looking for a great A380 and A350 deal from Airbus and keeping Boeing interested with their B777X offerings, There are reports BA managers have enjoyed recent IB A350 LHR-MAD flights.

[Less Hair]

What makes China not buy more significant numbers of A380s? They have the market, the airports, the routes and the money.

[White Knight]

In practice when I’m rotating in my 777, the 777 behind me receives a takeoff clearance, and so on and so on, diverging SIDS are planned so one turns left, the next turns right

In practice when I'm rotating in my 380, the 380 behind me receives a takeoff clearance, and so on and so on.

You still have time separation behind a Triple when 320 or 737s are next in line...

2. Airlines also make money moving freight in the belly. To profit in that environment requires a single deck aircraft. Double deckers tend to fill their belly with passenger luggage.

Sadly, as superb as the airplane is, the A380 violates both points 1 and 2.

I've often had 600 plus pax plus all of their bags plus 25 tonnes of freight. The 380 can carry the weight- the problem is bulky stuff like a whole Ferrari!

[Cleared Visual]

While the Lazy B keeps pumping out the 737 series, the miscues certainly have cost them dearly...757, 767, 748, and losing the C Series. The Embraer deal is a bit amusing, but C919 and ARJ21 ill have to be dealt with.

I would hardly call the 767 a miscue, with over 1,100 built so far (more prolific than the 707) and a healthy backlog of orders for new build freighters, I think a production run sustained for 40+ years is a mark of a great success!

[Groundloop]

i wonder what BA will do? their 380 fleet (13?) is now quite niche
BA have stated quite a few times that they would like to enlarge their 380 fleet - if the price was right!

[RexBanner]

BA have had discussions with Airbus about the A380 and a couple of other European airlines who are desperate to get rid of theirs. However they’ve told Airbus that they’ll only take them for their break even price, which would reduce the chances of a deal somewhat I would imagine. Otherwise they’re keen on the 777X due to their engine options not being manufactured by a certain Derbyshire based company. Heard all of this from as close to the source’s mouth as it’s possible to get just before a LHR-DUB flight recently.

[davews]

Well for those of you who went to Farnborough last week the A380 was certainly centre stage - although it did seem to be a plug for Global Warming being festooned in livery forecasting that the Coral Reefs will be gone by 2050. Tours for the public inside but when I passed on Saturday it seemed to be just for the privileged few. Also the new A350-1000 which flew in the air displays doing acrobatics I hope none of you pilots do when you have real passengers aboard. I certainly didn't get the impression that its days are numbered.

[birmingham]

The economics are a challenge if the aircraft isn't filled and fuel prices are low. So airline managers (largely risk averse, systematised creatures these days) have generally given it a wide berth. If oil goes back above $100 (and recent history has shown nobody can accurately forecast that) and the industry gains a bit of confidence then there is certainly a place for both the 380s and the smaller twins. Given a choice between economy in a 787 and an A380 I know which I would rather travel in. But passenger preference is increasingly less relevant to the industry's calculations.

[KenV]

I've often had 600 plus pax plus all of their bags plus 25 tonnes of freight. The 380 can carry the weight- the problem is bulky stuff like a whole Ferrari!It's not a matter of mass. It's a question of volume. Passenger baggage is low density, taking up lots of space without weighing all that much. The lower lobe (cargo deck) volume of an A380 is actually LESS than 777-300ER's lower lobe volume (175.3 cuM vs 201.6 cuM). But since the A380 is a double deck above, it carries far more people so that lower lobe is filled with much more luggage, leaving little space for freight. How much freight weight can be carried depends on both the number of passengers aboard and the distance to be flown. As a comparison, according to Emirates, on the city-pairs they operate, an A380 with a full pax load the average freight capacity is 50 cuM and 8000 kgs and for a 777-300ER with a full pax load it's 125 cuM and 23,000 kg. That's a huge difference in freight capacity for the much "smaller" aircraft. And freight generates serious profits. And that's why airlines buy airplanes. To make money. And here's the troublesome part: Boeing is coming out with a bigger and significantly more efficient version of the 777 which will further shrink the A380s market niche and further shrink its profitability. The business case for stretching/upgrading the A380 is non existent, even if Airbus magically found the resources to do so.

Again, addressing the secondary market, if you turn an A380 into a high density passenger hauler serving the charter market, can you fit all the passengers' luggage into the cargo hold, or are you going to have to restrict the amount of baggage passengers can bring aboard? Crunch the numbers: an Emirates A380 in three class configuration fills 75% of its cargo volume with baggage and has 25% cargo volume margin for freight. That means a high density configuration that carries more than 25% additional passengers than the Emirates configuration will not have room for all the baggage unless there are baggage restrictions. How will that sell?

Douglas seriously looked at a double decker when they designed the MD-12. The economics did not make sense and it was never built. It seems Airbus was too intent on "one upping" Boeing and pressed ahead with a slightly bigger aircraft than the MD-12 and thus would have an even smaller (and more questionable) niche market. And so here they are, with "the best yet to come." Yah shur.

[CargoOne]

BA have had discussions with Airbus about the A380 and a couple of other European airlines who are desperate to get rid of theirs. However they’ve told Airbus that they’ll only take them for their break even price, which would reduce the chances of a deal somewhat I would imagine.

Well BA is getting two more a380s soon but this time in shape of wetlease from HiFly

[KenV]

The economics are a challenge if the aircraft isn't filled and fuel prices are low. So airline managers (largely risk averse, systematised creatures these days) have generally given it a wide berth. If oil goes back above $100.....Very unlikely. Texas by itself is scheduled to become the world's number 3 producer of oil by 2019. The Permian Basin (west Texas) is growing very fast with oil that is profitable at $40 per barrel. The biggest constraint in the Permian is pipe capacity, and there are a number of pipelines scheduled to come on line soon. The Eagle Ford (south Texas) has even more oil than the Permian and is only slightly more expensive to drill and pump, with the costs going steadily down. Eagle Ford is in the early development stages relative to Permian, so over time there will be more and more oil available. OPEC can no longer control the price of oil and their ability to do so will only decrease over time. And that's just Texas. There is LOTS more oil in other states as well as Canada. And Trump has authorized that pipeline from Canada to the Texas coast that Obama killed.

The demand for oil is rising steadily. But the supply is rising faster. That means steady or declining prices.

[Icarus2001]

The economics are a challenge if the aircraft isn't filled and fuel prices are low.

Can you explain why low fuel fuel prices work against the A380? Given that it is a thirsty bird with four engines burning compared to say the B777 or B787 or A350?

[Sailvi767]

The charter market for the A380 is limited by the airports that can support it. That is why Boeing is going to fold the wings on the 777. It’s not fun to sit burning fuel for 10 extra minutes waiting for a A380 coming the other way on a parallel taxiway and that’s at JFK! The fact they seem to taxi at 5 knots does not help.

[Volume]

Given that it is a thirsty bird with four engines burning compared to say the B777 or B787 or A350?
Of course it is more thirsty, it is bigger.
If fully loaded and on the mission it is designed for, the a380 burns less fuel per passenger than the 777. 787/A350 are newer design with newer technology, so they do indeed burn less per passenger.
It is not the number of engines, and if exceeding a certain size, there is no other option than having 4 engines.

Given a choice between economy in a 787 and an A380 I know which I would rather travel in.
Given the choice between a non-stop flight on a 787 and a flight via a hub to fill an A380 I would exactly know what I would travel in: In the A350 nonstop ;)

But since the A380 is a double deck above, it carries far more people so that lower lobe is filled with much more luggage, leaving little space for freight.
There probably is agood reason (or actually two more...) why Boeing never changed the 747 to full double deck. Looking at the dreamlifter, they may have been able to do so, but actually it does not make sense.
Airbus once had a major market advantage for the A300 compared to the Boeing products, because they offered more cargo space which allowed the airlines to do additional profit. On the A380 they did the opposite, and it hurts. Initially they went for a conventional environmental control arrangement, but later moved it to the wing roots to gain some more cargo space. They also (compared to the 747) selected a body gear arrangement which allows additional cargo space between, still it is not that much.

That is why Boeing is going to fold the wings on the 777.
They still have to proof that this does not only look like a clever design, but actually works in real service life... Adding complexity rarely pays off.

[nomorecatering]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say both the 747 and A380 will continue on for a very long time. The 747 will get some further tweeks, the A380 will get a longer fuselage. Airport planners in Asia are already talking about designs for airports and terminals which will see 500+ million pax per year. The new twins are magnificent air frames, but they are not the 747 or A380. Their demise is greatly exaggerated to paraphrase the well know quote.

[KenV]

There probably is a good reason (or actually two more...) why Boeing never changed the 747 to full double deck. Looking at the dreamlifter, they may have been able to do so, but actually it does not make sense.The dreamlifter is mostly non pressurized, so not applicable. Boeing chose to stretch the 747 fuselage rather than just extend the upper deck because they wanted to increase passenger AND freight capacity. Extending just the upper deck increases passenger capacity while reducing freight capacity.


Airbus once had a major market advantage for the A300 compared to the Boeing products, because they offered more cargo space which allowed the airlines to do additional profit. On the A380 they did the opposite, and it hurts. Initially they went for a conventional environmental control arrangement, but later moved it to the wing roots to gain some more cargo space.In Boeing aircraft "a conventional environmental control arrangement" puts the system in the wing to body fairings OUTside of the fuselage, so it does not reduce cargo hold capacity.

They also (compared to the 747) selected a body gear arrangement which allows additional cargo space between, still it is not that much.That's the big advantage of the 777 vis a vis cargo space. There is no body gear. With the exception of the centerwing structure, the entire lower lobe is available for cargo. No gear retracting into the body.


They still have to proof that this does not only look like a clever design, but actually works in real service life... Adding complexity rarely pays off.The folding wing design on the 777X is exceptionally simple. The flap system on a 747 is far far more complex and "actually works in real service life." For that matter the landing gear retraction/extension system on a typical airliner is far more complex than the 777's wing fold mechanism and they certainly "actually work in real service life."

[KenV]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say both the 747 and A380 will continue on for a very long time. The 747 will get some further tweeks, the A380 will get a longer fuselage. Airport planners in Asia are already talking about designs for airports and terminals which will see 500+ million pax per year. The new twins are magnificent air frames, but they are not the 747 or A380. Their demise is greatly exaggerated to paraphrase the well know quote.You may be right, but on the other hand......
1. The 747-8I (the passenger model) is essentially done. Only 747-8Fs are selling.
2. The business case for stretching the A380 is non existent. The base design needs to be profitable before major upgrades like new engines or stretch configurations can even be contemplated. And the base design is simply not making a profit for Airbus.

[TURIN]

Your 777 ride was more "bumpy, rattley and noisy" than your Dash 8 ride???? Were you in the engine nacelle? :)

Hard to believe I know, but seriously, I was sat at the back of the Dash 8 and it was smooth as silk. Business class in the 777 was very noisy and juddery in comparison, it wasn't turbulence either.

[TURIN]

That's the big advantage of the 777 vis a vis cargo space. There is no body gear. With the exception of the centerwing structure, the entire lower lobe is available for cargo. No gear retracting into the body.

Come again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bTPq6qNTs

[trancada]

The charter market for the A380 is limited by the airports that can support it. That is why Boeing is going to fold the wings on the 777. It’s not fun to sit burning fuel for 10 extra minutes waiting for a A380 coming the other way on a parallel taxiway and that’s at JFK! The fact they seem to taxi at 5 knots does not help.


Lets see the business progress of HIFLY, in the charter and ACMI market.

[Icarus2001]

Of course it is more thirsty, it is bigger.
If fully loaded and on the mission it is designed for, the a380 burns less fuel per passenger than the 777. 787/A350 are newer design with newer technology, so they do indeed burn less per passenger.
It is not the number of engines, and if exceeding a certain size, there is no other option than having 4 engines.

Thanks for stating the obvious and managing to not answer my question at the same time.

[MrDK]

It will be interesting to see if the 2nd hand market for A380 attracts a charter operator who utilises the full 800+ capacity. That might make quite a difference. One A380 instead of 4 x B737/A320. It isn't unusual to see 3 or 4 operators operating the same route at a similar time. Could one operator of an A380 take the prize?

That appears to be a pipe dream.
Malaysia Airlines was unable to offload six aircrafts
It made plans for a charter business of their own, that went nowhere.

Thai Airways disputably was trying to sell six frames could not find buyers for its six A380's

The first two retired Singapore Airlines A380's are being scrapped, after just 10 years of service
Searching for buyers failed, active negotiations included British Airways, Iran Air and Hi Fly (charter)
There were reports that Hi Fly would lease the two frames (Apr 2018), but later (June 2018) Dr. Peters (owners) confirmed the plan to scrap.

What a second hand market that is!

[swh]

The first two retired Singapore Airlines A380's are being scrapped, after just 10 years of service
!

They were the earliest A380s much heavier and with all of the custom wiring rework. In comparison Boeing were unable to find a buyer for No. 4 and No. 5 787s and wrote off the aircraft in 2016 for $1.235 billion as a development expense. They also were heavier with lots of rework. The earlier 787s were placed in museums.

[KenV]

Come again? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bTPq6qNTsLook more closely at that video. Those are wing mounted landing gear retracting into the area between the wings. Both the 747 and the A380 have four main gear legs: two mounted on the wings (like the 777) plus two mounted on the fuselage. Those body gear eat into the cargo hold volume. The 777 does not have such body gear which gives it an advantage in hauling belly freight.

[KenV]

I keep seeing this claim that the A380 reduces congestion at major hubs. i seriously question that. This is ONLY true if every passenger on board an A380 has as their home point or final destination the major hub. Those passengers that either live farther away from the hub or whose destination is farther from the hub need to be fed to and from the hub on smaller aircraft. So every A380 flight may require two, three, or more feeder flights both into and out of BOTH hubs by smaller feeder aircraft. That INcreases congestion. Smaller long range aircraft (like A350 and 787) truly reduce congestion at the hubs by enabling a direct flight from the feeder airport to another feeder airport, entirely eliminating the need to stop at the congested hub. A380 only makes sense in a hub and spoke system and planes like the A350 and 787 are disrupting the hub and spoke system.

So when someone asks: "Would you rather fly an A380 or a 787/A350" the real question should be "would you rather fly in a 737/A320 then an A380 and then a 737/A320 or just fly direct in an A350/787?" The answer should be obvious.

[DaveReidUK]

So when someone asks: "Would you rather fly an A380 or a 787/A350" the real question should be "would you rather fly in a 737/A320 then an A380 and then a 737/A320 or just fly direct in an A350/787?" The answer should be obvious.

It would be interesting to see just how many 787/A350 routes don't have a hub at either one end or the other, which is what the above implies.

[KenV]

It would be interesting to see just how many 787/A350 routes don't have a hub at either one end or the other, which is what the above implies.You missed my point. A380 pretty much MUST operate out of major hubs. 787/A350 MAY operate out of major hubs, but also MAY operate out of much smaller airports. What's that mean? The A380 is restricted to a market niche and must compete against 747/777/787/A350 in that niche. 787/A350 operate in a much larger market and for a good portion of that market do not have to compete against the A380 at all.

[DaveReidUK]

You missed my point.

And you in turn have missed mine.

You are implying that the alternative to a point-to-point direct flight on a 787/A350 would necessitate a 3-leg itinerary from the origin to Hub A, then onward to Hub B, and finally to the destination.

I'm suggesting that there are relatively few city pairs that currently require 3 legs to get between but which would nevertheless be capable (traffic-wise) of supporting a direct service. So it's not really a valid comparison.

And yes, I'm aware of the difference between the markets that the A380 is targeted at and those for the 787/A350.

[20driver]

As several have pointed out here, the market and the punters have spoken. My first flight from EWR to the UK, to get to Belfast, was on a 747 to London 30 years ago . Right now there are many non stops to the UK and Ireland from NYC area. All on twins. Belfast, Dublin, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Cork !! , have a least one non stop. You can call NYC a hub, but most of the destinations outside of London are not.
Another factor is not only what a twin can do , but the old treaties forced airlines to funnel through a national hub. That is no more. Who would have imagined flying from Cork to New York on a 737 even 10 years ago? Another factor no one has mentioned here is landing fees and costs. The more connections, the more someone has to pay. Which is interesting as the non stops are sometimes more expensive than a connecting flight. That tells me airlines can get a premium by saving people time.
The A380 may be a great plane, but it was the wrong bet. One item I read years back was Boeing figured the weight penalty of the second floor with the drag of the bigger fuselage (function of the area, the square of the tube diameter) and the 4 engines was always going to make the double decker an non starter.
Lucky or good, Boeing got it right.
20driver

[MrDK]

They were the earliest A380s much heavier and with all of the custom wiring rework. In comparison Boeing were unable to find a buyer for No. 4 and No. 5 787s and wrote off the aircraft in 2016 for $1.235 billion as a development expense. They also were heavier with lots of rework. The earlier 787s were placed in museums.

That of course makes sense, but about Malaysia Airlines who could not find buyers for six frames and if true that Thai Airways wanted to sell, it was in the same situation.
Add Amedeo Leasing which will be sitting on twelve A380's due to be back in a few years.
It has actively been campaigning for replacement leases, but to avail.
So bad it is planning its own "rent a seat" all A380 airline.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Without cargo ops it seems 4 donks is almost extinct

[Cool Guys]

What is so special about an A380 reducing congestion at major hubs? A 787 or A330 will also reduce congestion. If the 737s/A320s are replaced with 787s/A330s the congestion is being reduced. The only situation where this situation is unique to the A380 is if the hub is already full of 777s/A350s.

[PAXboy]

It never stop to amaze me that we are working in an industry where the client ( the paying pax ) has in fact nothing to say but accept what others decide is best for them. and we are supposed to live in a market oriented global business!
I think there are many industries where this applies. The most obvious is Supermarkets. They always say, "We only offer what our customers want" But I have never had a supermarket ask me what I want - and I'm 61! But I have had supermarkets stop selling things I like and the only explanation they give is that not enough people were buying it. When they replace the item with their own brand look-alike product, one sees the lie.

I do not think that ANY global industry truly listens to it's customers. Look at the tech companies who supply computers, tablets and mobile (cell) phones.
End of rant.

[MrDK]

What is so special about an A380 reducing congestion at major hubs? A 787 or A330 will also reduce congestion. If the 737s/A320s are replaced with 787s/A330s the congestion is being reduced. The only situation where this situation is unique to the A380 is if the hub is already full of 777s/A350s.

Emirates currently has near 50% more 777's than 380's in the fleet
It has near to twice as many 777's on order than it does.380's.
That, to me, paints a picture about fleet expansion, especially since orders for smaller Boeing's (77X/787) outpaced A380 about 9:1 in the past four years.

[donpizmeov]

Emirates currently has near 50% more 777's than 380's in the fleet
It has near to twice as many 777's on order than it does.380's.
That, to me, paints a picture about fleet expansion, especially since orders for smaller Boeing's (77X/787) outpaced A380 about 9:1 in the past four years.

And nearly 50% of all the 326 77X orders come from EK .Sound similar to the 380 story at all? When the price tag touches over half a billion dollars per unit airlines become a bit shy with their money. 235 of the 326 77X orders come from three companies, being EK, QR and EY. Haven't we seen this before somewhere?

You can get almost 3 787s for the price of one 77X or a 380. The lesser lease/capital cost mean bean counters are able to make far larger bonuses from these smaller aeroplanes. Why would they not want to buy them?

EK operate up to a couple of services a day to MRU, BHX, MAN, LGW, NCE, PRG, VIE with a 380 .A couple of those destinations are with a 2 class aeroplane with over 600 pax seats .So I am thinking the argument stating it can only operate to major hubs is not a valid one.

[Volume]

The folding wing design on the 777X is exceptionally simple.
Compared to the design of some aircraft carrier operated military aircraft or some folding wing motorgliders I do not think so.
There are for example 4 individually actuated latch pins, there is a locking mechanism and there is a folding actuator meaning 6 actuators where most landing gears have only two...
And the folding axis is not perpendicular to the wing centerline, making the structure around it extremely complex. (The alternative would have been more air loads during taxi)

In Boeing aircraft "a conventional environmental control arrangement" puts the system in the wing to body fairings OUTside of the fuselage,
It puts the A/C packs in the fairings, the recirc filters, mixers, fans etc. are all between the cargo bay and the center wing box reducing the available cargo volume.

The dreamlifter is mostly non pressurized, so not applicable.
I was more thinking about aerodynamics and weight. Extending the conventional pressurized 747 upper deck all the way back to the tail would have been relatively easy (they partially did it on the -300 EUD and the -400, they could have streched it even further), but would have created the same issues the A380 has (as you correctly identified): lack of cargo space per passenger and lack of cargo weight capacity.
Not talking area ruling and trassonic drag...

[procede]

Compared to the design of some aircraft carrier operated military aircraft or some folding wing motorgliders I do not think so.
There are for example 4 individually actuated latch pins, there is a locking mechanism and there is a folding actuator meaning 6 actuators where most landing gears have only two...
And the folding axis is not perpendicular to the wing centerline, making the structure around it extremely complex. (The alternative would have been more air loads during taxi)

Where the comparison with the 747 flap system goes astray, is that the folding wing folds in the direction of the main force (up) where the track system folds in the direction of the wing cord (and down). The flap system thus needs less safety measures to stop it from extending or retracting due to aerodynamic forces.

I was more thinking about aerodynamics and weight. Extending the conventional pressurized 747 upper deck all the way back to the tail would have been relatively easy (they partially did it on the -300 EUD and the -400, they could have streched it even further), but would have created the same issues the A380 has (as you correctly identified): lack of cargo space per passenger and lack of cargo weight capacity.
Not talking area ruling and trassonic drag...

KLM stretched the the top deck of their 742 to the length of the 743. This actually ended up reducing overall fuel burn due to lower drag, even though weight was added. https://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/02/an-inside-look-at-the-boeing-747-stretched-upper-deck-sud/

[KenV]

Compared to the design of some aircraft carrier operated military aircraft or some folding wing motorgliders I do not think so.
There are for example 4 individually actuated latch pins, there is a locking mechanism and there is a folding actuator meaning 6 actuators where most landing gears have only two...
And the folding axis is not perpendicular to the wing centerline, making the structure around it extremely complex. (The alternative would have been more air loads during taxi).I'm not certain, but I believe you are describing the optional 777 wing fold mechanism. The 777X mechanism is much simpler. The 777 wing folded 21 ft of wing. The 777X only folds 10 feet of wing, with essentially only the raked wing tip getting folded. Each folding wingtip has a single rotary fold actuator and four latch pins with integral actuators.

As for the number of actuators in a landing gear system, in order to sequence the doors properly, many systems require a separate actuator for each door and each leg often has multiple doors.

It puts the A/C packs in the fairings, the recirc filters, mixers, fans etc. are all between the cargo bay and the center wing box reducing the available cargo volume. Those components are indeed behind the center wing box in the belly.. However, the landing gear retract into the area further behind the center wing box. That area is not available for cargo loading anyway.

[KenV]

Where the comparison with the 747 flap system goes astray, is that the folding wing folds in the direction of the main force (up) where the track system folds in the direction of the wing cord (and down). The flap system thus needs less safety measures to stop it from extending or retracting due to aerodynamic forces.A few points:
1. The wingtip only folds/unfolds on the ground. The flaps MUST extend and retract in flight.
2. The wingtips only have two positions. The flaps have multiple positions.
3. The wingtips each have four simple lock pins to lock them in place and are fail safe (if they fail, they fail locked). The flaps have multiple failure modes, and not all are fail safe.
4. The wingtips can fold/unfold assymetrically with no concern. The flaps MUST extend and retract symmetrically, requiring complex sensors and redundant controls to ensure this ALWAYS happens.
5. The wingtips each have a simple single rotary actuator. The flaps have multiple segments and multiple actuators
6. The wingtips have a very simple rotary motion. The flaps have a complex motion that includes translation and rotation.at constantly varying ratios which requires a complex track/link system.
7. The wingtips are structurally and aerodynamically simple and if one or both wingtips are lost in flight the aircraft remains fully controllable. The flaps are much more complex structurally and aerodynamically. Lose a flap in flight and you're screwed.
8. The wingtips only need to fold to taxi off the runway and/or fit into a gate, so the consequences of a failure to fold are minor and at most an annoyance. The flaps need to extend to land and the consequences of a failure to extend are much more serious.
9. The wingtips unfold on the ground before becoming airborne so if there's a problem you know about it well before you even commit to flight. The flaps retract AFTER takeoff and MUST retract to continue the flight. If they fail to retract the flight must be aborted.
10. There's more, but this will suffice.

I'll let the reader decide which system is "safer", "more complex", "requires more safety measures", etc

[SeenItAll]

A few points:
1. The wingtip only folds/unfolds on the ground. The flaps MUST extend and retract in flight.
2. The wingtips only have two positions. The flaps have multiple positions.
3. The wingtips each have four simple lock pins to lock them in place and are fail safe (if they fail, they fail locked). The flaps have multiple failure modes, and not all are fail safe.
4. The wingtips can fold/unfold assymetrically with no concern. The flaps MUST extend and retract symmetrically, requiring complex sensors and redundant controls to ensure this ALWAYS happens.
5. The wingtips each have a simple single rotary actuator. The flaps have multiple segments and multiple actuators
6. The wingtips have a very simple rotary motion. The flaps have a complex motion that includes translation and rotation.at constantly varying ratios which requires a complex track/link system.
7. The wingtips are structurally and aerodynamically simple and if one or both wingtips are lost in flight the aircraft remains fully controllable. The flaps are much more complex structurally and aerodynamically. Lose a flap in flight and you're screwed.
8. The wingtips only need to fold to taxi off the runway and/or fit into a gate, so the consequences of a failure to fold are minor and at most an annoyance. The flaps need to extend to land and the consequences of a failure to extend are much more serious.
9. The wingtips unfold on the ground before becoming airborne so if there's a problem you know about it well before you even commit to flight. The flaps retract AFTER takeoff and MUST retract to continue the flight. If they fail to retract the flight must be aborted.
10. There's more, but this will suffice.

I'll let the reader decide which system is "safer", "more complex", "requires more safety measures", etc

KenV: Now that is a pretty overwhelming set of arguments. I guess we will see if they all hold true in practice once the 777X is flying. But one more thing. I had heard that wing-folding was to be an option on the 777X. If this is correct, it would be interesting to hear how many frames are being ordered with, and how many without. That might indicate a bit the confidence level that airlines have in the mechanism -- or the tightness of the typical gates at which they expect to park these planes.

[tdracer]

KenV: Now that is a pretty overwhelming set of arguments. I guess we will see if they all hold true in practice once the 777X is flying. But one more thing. I had heard that wing-folding was to be an option on the 777X. If this is correct, it would be interesting to hear how many frames are being ordered with, and how many without. That might indicate a bit the confidence level that airlines have in the mechanism -- or the tightness of the typical gates at which they expect to park these planes.

No, it's not an option on the 777X - the folding wingtip is basic. There is too much confusions with the originally proposed 777 folding wing (~1990) which was never implemented.

[ImageGear]

I ain't flying on anything that has folding wings.

In a previous life I missed a wings folding event by 24 hours. The result is quite terminal, I know.

IG

[Mk 1]

I ain't flying on anything that has folding wings.

In a previous life I missed a wings folding event by 24 hours. The result is quite terminal, I know.

IG
How about a folding wingtip which does not affect the basic controllability of the airframe is extended or retracted asymetrically?

[ImageGear]

Asymmetrically?, which buffoon is going to flight test that? I still would not get on the damn thing. I guess I won't be going sub-orbital either. Engineers are like Doctors and Accountants, lots of talk, big bills, and often pushing you off their bleeding edge.

..and don't now get me going about FBW, do I ride airbus - yes, do I also try hopelessly to push it into a cold dark cell in the deep inner core of my brain, absolutely.

IG

[Volume]

I agree with the flaps with respect to complexity, but I disagree that they are good performers. There is an awful lot of wear and tear on the flap hinges and actuation system for practically any aircraft, there is a lot of maintenance involved.
To get the turn back to the A380, its flap system is significantly simpler than that of the 747, still it is more efficient. There are a lot of details where the A380 is well ahead of its competitors of its time. This advantage by now has been deleted with the 787 and with Airbus own A350. Their flap system is even simpler.

The flaps are mandatory, the folding wing is a choice. You cannot avoid the complexity of the flap system, but you can avoid the folding wing. Especially when you have a high capacity aircraft which will only operate from large airports. Probably on many airports you can manage to park 777X between 787s or similar, so that the additional 3 meters do not hurt.
Airbus intentionally accepted the restriction in wing span for the A380, especially after they have learned Boeings lesson that no operator selected the optional folding wing on the 777. It costs some efficiency, but it saves a lot of complexity and extra weight.
A 777 with "permanently folded wings" (aka Winglets) would be only marginally less efficient, mainly depending on the exact mission they will finally operate.

We will see how the 777X outsells the A380. Or not. The time of the very large aircraft may simply be over. Today you can have range without size, you can have higher flexibility with less risk. It might not be a technically (i.e. DOC based) decision to go for smaller aircraft. It looks like the 777X just like the A380 only makes sense for the gulf hubs, high capacity airports far away from anybodies destination, where you need size and range. The 777X will probably never become the Queen of the north Atlantic, maybe an A321 XULR will be instead...

[procede]

How about a folding wingtip which does not affect the basic controllability of the airframe is extended or retracted asymetrically?
Having one retract and the other not will always cause a lift asymmetry. If it doesn't affect the aircraft at all, you might as well just leave the entire wingtip off in the first place.

What I think will happen: For the next round of weight savings on the 777X, the movable tip will be moved from a fixed item to an optional item, removing the weight penalty from the performance guaranties. As no airline will want to accept the penalty, it will die a quiet death. I think long range aircraft are not the best application for this technology, due to the increased payload-range penalties. They also do not spend a lot of time on the ground.

One thing I must say for Boeing, is that at least they are taking the effort now of trying to certify it, so maybe it will work in the future. With the previous tip on the original 777, any airline wanting the folding tip basically had to arrange and pay for the certification as well, clearly indicating Boeing did not want anyone to actually take the option.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't see what all the fuss is about:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/448x305/f4foldedwings_0_641091c321159e08ede68cf27de91569b1e4de6c.jpg

:O :O :O

[Icarus2001]

..and don't now get me going about FBW, do I ride airbus - yes, do I also try hopelessly to push it into a cold dark cell in the deep inner core of my brain, You do realise that Boeing and Embraer are also FBW? The difference is that they both kept a conventional control "wheel".

[parabellum]

Asymmetrically?, which buffoon is going to flight test that? I still would not get on the damn thing. I guess I won't be going sub-orbital either. Engineers are like Doctors and Accountants, lots of talk, big bills, and often pushing you off their bleeding edge.

If it ever gets off the ground, (excuse the pun), it will surely have a lock-out system whereby either both work or neither work? A simple dynamic pressure sensor, in the leading edge of the tip, could lock-out any tip movement whilst the aircraft is doing more than, say, forty knots? If the dynamic sensing on one side fails then the asymmetric lock-out function should operate?

[bnt]

Rather than a folding wing, why not a partial swing-wing, say one that swings at approx 2/3 of the way out? Fully forward for landing, swung partly back for cruise, all the way back at the gate? I know it would mean extra weight, though.

[procede]

I don't see what all the fuss is about:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/448x305/f4foldedwings_0_641091c321159e08ede68cf27de91569b1e4de6c.jpg

:O :O :O

Parking on (or actually in) aircraft carriers is at a slightly higher premium than at most international airports. Also these short range aircraft with a thrust to weight close to one have ejection seats and the 777X probably does not. ;-)

[procede]

If it ever gets off the ground, (excuse the pun), it will surely have a lock-out system whereby either both work or neither work? A simple dynamic pressure sensor, in the leading edge of the tip, could lock-out any tip movement whilst the aircraft is doing more than, say, forty knots? If the dynamic sensing on one side fails then the asymmetric lock-out function should operate?

Sound like the design of the DC-10 cargo door: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10#Cargo_door_problem_and_other_major_accidents

[ImageGear]

You do realise that Boeing and Embraer are also FBW? The difference is that they both kept a conventional control "wheel"

I choose to ride FBY because there is little alternative today unless I go for the three stops option, and in any case I have conditioned myself to think that FBY is just a marketing sell and is only a figment of my imagination. Please don't tell me otherwise. :ok:

IG

[unexplained blip]

No, it's not an option on the 777X - the folding wingtip is basic. There is too much confusions with the originally proposed 777 folding wing (~1990) which was never implemented.

Further on that, the unfolded wingspan is too much for the everett assembly line.

[KenV]

We will see how the 777X outsells the A380. Or not. The time of the very large aircraft may simply be over. .We really don't have to wait. Boeing has already received 326 orders for the 777X. Airbus has received 331 orders for the A380. So essentially already the same sales. 777X is not yet in production. A380 has been in production for over a decade. 777X was specifically designed to replace the 777-300ER, which will begin reaching the end or their economic service lives a few years after 777X begins deliveries. There were over 830 777-300ER ordered, so a pretty large market. That's also when many 747-400 reach the end of their service lives, which adds further to the size of the potential market. 777X is a much better replacement candidate for both than the A380. That being said, A350-1000 will compete in the bottom end of that market, so not all of that market will go to Boeing. But the likelihood that A380 will capture a significant portion of that market is close to nil. A380 operates in its own market, and its a niche. A niche market that is apparently shrinking, with both the 777X and A350 nibbling away at it.

[procede]

Further on that, the unfolded wingspan is too much for the everett assembly line.

Then just fit the raked wingtips as the last item, when it is outside the door. They should be line replaceable anyway.

[KenV]

Further on that, the unfolded wingspan is too much for the everett assembly line.Keep in mind that the folding portion is the raked wigTIP. The wingtip does not need to be installed inside the assembly area and can be installed outside, just as the engines are installed outside on many Boeing aircraft. But you do make a good point in that the 777X with folded wing tips can be handled just like the 777 today. No need to change either the final assembly area or the flight line to accommodate 777X. And maybe why the folding wingtip is standard and not an option.

[KenV]

Rather than a folding wing, why not a partial swing-wing, say one that swings at approx 2/3 of the way out? Fully forward for landing, swung partly back for cruise, all the way back at the gate? I know it would mean extra weight, though.For the same reason that only one carrier aircraft used swing-wing oversweep to reduce aircraft shadow on the ground and all the rest used folding wings. It's very complex and adds lots of weight and cost. The swingwing oversweep only made sense because the Tomcat already had swing wings for entirely other reasons.

[Kerosene Kraut]

The engines are installed inside at the final position. They are the most expensive parts so it pays to wait until the final moment. Only some neo's -as an exemption- got forwarded through the process without engines as they need to wait for the upgraded ones.

[KenV]

If it ever gets off the ground, (excuse the pun), it will surely have a lock-out system whereby either both work or neither work? A simple dynamic pressure sensor, in the leading edge of the tip, could lock-out any tip movement whilst the aircraft is doing more than, say, forty knots? If the dynamic sensing on one side fails then the asymmetric lock-out function should operate?Absolutely no need. The wingtips are unfolded BEFORE takeoff. If there is a jam or other problem that prevents the wingtip from locking down it will be caught before takeoff and you simply don't takeoff.

Further, remember it is the raked wingTIP that is folded. Asymmetry is not really much of an issue. For example, suppose the winglet on one side of a 737 or A320 broke off? What would be the flight impact? Controllability wise, it would be almost a non issue.

[Volume]

Boeing has already received 326 orders for the 777X.
Which is less than the number of "conventional" 777 which have been ordered in the same timeframe in the past. Currently the 777X is selling inferior to the 77W. Which may have a lot of good reasons.
210 out of those 326 have been ordered by ME3 carriers (roughly 2/3), around half by only a single one... One blow to their economy and the 777X is far below break-even.
Just like Airbus for the A380, Boeing is betting the project on a single customer... Which once paid off for the 747, so it may work again.

There were over 830 777-300ER ordered, so a pretty large market.
Why should we assume that those large aircraft will be replaced with new large aircraft? Many 77W may be replaced by two Dreamliners each... Many airlines replaced their 747s with dreamliners, and not with 747-8 (or with A380, considering the growth in the market). There is absolutely no rule that an aircraft has to be replaced with a similar or larger one.

No need to change either the final assembly area or the flight line to accommodate 777X. And maybe why the folding wingtip is standard and not an option.
I think this is because of the current ICAO standards. Airbus decided for the A380 to stick to it, Boeing decided for the 777 to work around it.
(ICAO Annex 14, Category F is the currently largest existing, and it is "65 m up to but not including 80 m ")
The other option would be to create a category G (Gigantic). Airports will love it, longer piers at the airport means more shopping/restaurant area to rent out for profit...

[KenV]

Which is less than the number of "conventional" 777 which have been ordered in the same timeframe in the pastThe 777-300ER is far and away the best seller of the 777 series. 777X has sold more at this stage of its development than 777-300ER at the same stage of development.

Why should we assume that those large aircraft will be replaced with new large aircraft?No one is assuming that. Just pointing out that there is an obvious large market and Boeing builds two aircraft that can address it, one at the bottom end of the market and one at the top end. A380 cannot really address that market at all.

I think this is because of the current ICAO standards. Airbus decided for the A380 to stick to it, Boeing decided for the 777 to work around it.
(ICAO Annex 14, Category F is the currently largest existing, and it is "65 m up to but not including 80 m ") The other option would be to create a category G (Gigantic). Airports will love it, longer piers at the airport means more shopping/restaurant area to rent out for profit...The 777X without folding wingtips has LESS span than A380 (71.8m vs 79.8m) so it would never venture into category G territory. With folding wingtips 777X is in the same category as 777 and classic 747, which is to say category E (or design group V in the FAA system.). Which is the whole point of the folding wingtip. Unlike A380 and 747-8, airports and operators don't have to change anything for the 777X. Indeed, if 747-8 could fold its raked wingtip, it would have a category E wingspan also, just like the classic 747.

[tdracer]

Which is less than the number of "conventional" 777 which have been ordered in the same timeframe in the past. Currently the 777X is selling inferior to the 77W. Which may have a lot of good reasons.
Not only bizarre, but demonstrably wrong. The 777X has ~3 times the number of orders at this point it's development (the original 777 had a little over 100 orders prior to first flight, and oh by the way those orders were dominated by just a few operators). Orders picked up after the aircraft was certified - not surprising since Boeing then had hard fuel burn and operating cost data to show potential customers, not estimates.
If some of you had your way, we never would have gone to retractable landing gear (a far more complex arrangement than the 777X folding wingtip). And which would be worse - loosing ~10 ft. off a 210 ft. wingspan, or a wheels up landing?

[4runner]

Absolutely no need. The wingtips are unfolded BEFORE takeoff. If there is a jam or other problem that prevents the wingtip from locking down it will be caught before takeoff and you simply don't takeoff.

Further, remember it is the raked wingTIP that is folded. Asymmetry is not really much of an issue. For example, suppose the winglet on one side of a 737 or A320 broke off? What would be the flight impact? Controllability wise, it would be almost a non issue.

ive flown a 737 on a ferry flight with a broken winglet.

[4runner]

380’s will be resigned to beer cans and hajj flights from Bangladesh and sun-Saharan afrika. They’ll smell and look brand new after 10 years and will be parked for “long term storage” next to the L10-11 at Entebbe. Afterwards, Sierra Leon will restart a national airline with the honorable grand air Marshall general minister of aviation and national air defense Pierre Obochombo and purchase these aircraft for the grand revival of the flag carrier and newest rendition of Air Afrique.

[donpizmeov]

380’s will be resigned to beer cans and hajj flights from Bangladesh and sun-Saharan afrika. They’ll smell and look brand new after 10 years and will be parked for “long term storage” next to the L10-11 at Entebbe. Afterwards, Sierra Leon will restart a national airline with the honorable grand air Marshall general minister of aviation and national air defense Pierre Obochombo and purchase these aircraft for the grand revival of the flag carrier and newest rendition of Air Afrique.
i knew if I waited long enough I would see a post in a 380 thread that wasn't about a 777.

[glofish]

.... as is just yours now Don 😂 and as was your previous on this thread ....
But at least you're joining the club makin an argument against the behemouths and for twins:

You can get almost 3 787s for the price of one 77X or a 380. The lesser lease/capital cost mean bean counters are able to make far larger bonuses from these smaller aeroplanes. Why would they not want to buy them?

[donpizmeov]

Twins are fantastic until you want to cart a large load a long way . There is only one aeroplane on the market that can carry 520 pax and 10t of cargo over 7000nm or 500 pax over 7500nm . Can even do it from DXB in summer .
Now how many airlines need such a capability ? Not many. This is the same problem the 77X will have. The 773ER is an incredible aeroplane with performance that is right in the middle of the sweet spot for the majority of its operators . The cost of the new version for a capability that is not required by most operators will have a flow onto its sales. Good news for the 787 and 350 though. Not too many airlines seem keen to drop half a billion dollars on a depreciating asset. Be it a airbus or a John deer.

[West Coast]

Absolutely no need. The wingtips are unfolded BEFORE takeoff. If there is a jam or other problem that prevents the wingtip from locking down it will be caught before takeoff and you simply don't takeoff.

Further, remember it is the raked wingTIP that is folded. Asymmetry is not really much of an issue. For example, suppose the winglet on one side of a 737 or A320 broke off? What would be the flight impact? Controllability wise, it would be almost a non issue.

You're absolute in your belief that it would be caught?

[glad rag]

You're absolute in your belief that it would be caught?

There will be a secret CB that no one knows about so the crew can't trip it to stop the annoying horn...

[tdracer]

This is the same problem the 77X will have. The 773ER is an incredible aeroplane with performance that is right in the middle of the sweet spot for the majority of its operators .

The 777-8X is nearly the same size as the 777-300ER, but with much better fuel burn and longer range....

[Volume]

Not only bizarre, but demonstrably wrong. The 777X has ~3 times the number of orders at this point it's development (the original 777 had a little over 100 orders prior to first flight, and oh by the way those orders were dominated by just a few operators).
It depends how you interpret the numbers. The 787 has set a ridiculous benchmark for the number of orders received even before roll-out. If you compare how many orders Boeing received for the "conventional" 777 familiy in the last 3 years (around 150) and how many 777X orders they received in the last 3 years (30) it looks like airlines are not especially keen to buy the new, larger model... Yes, there is a solid backlock from the program start phase and a few operators, but there is no continuous strong demand from the world community. The number of operators interested in high capacity aircraft might be fading.
In the last 10 years, around 600 77W were ordered at a relative constant rate, in the last 5 years 326 777X have been ordered with only 10% of those in the last 3 years. It might be a general change in airline policy (back to realistic numbers for an aircraft which has not even been rolled out...), but it clearly is not selling "3 times better" than the conventional 777 so far.

This may be a duplication of the A380 sales, 190 were ordered by the time of the first delivery, only another 140 were ordered in the 10 years after. So for the 777X we may see another 200 ordered after first flight for the few high capacity routes, while we may see thousands of 787 and A350 ordered for all the routes where a higher frequency with smaller aircraft suits the end-customer needs and airport capabilities much more.

[KenV]

You're absolute in your belief that it would be caught?Hmmmm. Tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that a landing gear failing to extend would be caught before landing. That gear is MUCH more complex, and the consequences of a failed gear MUCH more severe than a folding wingtip.

Similarly, tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that an assymetric flap extension would be caught and prevented before aircraft upset. The flap system is MUCH more complex and the consequences of a failed flap extension much more severe than a folding wingtip.

[KenV]

It depends how you interpret the numbers. The 787 has set a ridiculous benchmark for the number of orders received even before roll-out. If you compare how many orders Boeing received for the "conventional" 777 family in the last 3 years (around 150) and how many 777X orders they received in the last 3 years (30) it looks like airlines are not especially keen to buy the new, larger model.Larger? The 777-8X is SMALLER than the 777-300ER (229 ft length vs 242 ft), but much more efficient. The -9X is larger than 300ER (251ft vs 242ft).

[Sailvi767]

.... as is just yours now Don 😂 and as was your previous on this thread ....
But at least you're joining the club makin an argument against the behemouths and for twins:

You can get almost 3 787s for the price of one 77X or a 380. The lesser lease/capital cost mean bean counters are able to make far larger bonuses from these smaller aeroplanes. Why would they not want to buy them?

If your statement were true on prices you would be correct. List price on a 777-900 is around 425 million verses 285 million for a 787-9. Large airlines often see 50% discounts leaving actual prices around 212 million verses 142 million.

[TURIN]

Look more closely at that video. Those are wing mounted landing gear retracting into the area between the wings. Both the 747 and the A380 have four main gear legs: two mounted on the wings (like the 777) plus two mounted on the fuselage. Those body gear eat into the cargo hold volume. The 777 does not have such body gear which gives it an advantage in hauling belly freight.

I understand what you are saying about body gear. However, the wing gear does not retract into the ctr wing box it is an area behind the ctr wing box fuel tank. It still cuts the size of the cargo hold.

[KenV]

I understand what you are saying about body gear. However, the wing gear does not retract into the ctr wing box it is an area behind the ctr wing box fuel tank. It still cuts the size of the cargo hold.Indeed. And there's lots of other stuff that "cuts the size of the cargo hold" (like many of the environmental system components behind the wing box.) I never stated nor implied that the 777-300 belly is devoid of anything that reduces its cargo capacity. I DID say that the lack of body gear gives it a significant advantage in cargo hold volume relative to the A380 despite the A380 being a significantly larger aircraft. And this cargo volume advantage relative to the A380 gives it an advantage in generating revenue for its owner. And generating revenue is the entire reason for the existence of an airliner.

[donpizmeov]

If the cargo carried makes more money than the extra 200 passengers carried by the 380, can I ask why airlines are increasing the passenger numbers on the 773 by going 10 across in econ rather than 9? CX and BA are changing to it, and EK has always had it. As the aircraft (777) is MTOW limited on longer flights this means the cargo it can carry starts to reduce at 11hrs of flight time and is zero at 14hrs .the 380 can carry full ZFW out to a bit over 16hrs (in the EK case that's 527 pax and 8t cargo). So with the extra pax and cargo load available the 4 holer wins on ULR flying using your metric . This would be supported when looking at the EK network where the 380 has taken the majority of ULR flying .

[West Coast]

Hmmmm. Tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that a landing gear failing to extend would be caught before landing. That gear is MUCH more complex, and the consequences of a failed gear MUCH more severe than a folding wingtip.

Similarly, tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that an assymetric flap extension would be caught and prevented before aircraft upset. The flap system is MUCH more complex and the consequences of a failed flap extension much more severe than a folding wingtip.

Until the human element is removed, the potential to forget to put the gear down, the wings up or the flaps out exists. I'm not as positive as you that the crew will catch it. Let's hope Boeing's wing fold config monitor is flawless.

I suspect if crews forget anything, it'll be to fold them up after landing and end up whacking things in the gate area.

[Una Due Tfc]

The reason there’s been a relative dearth in widebody orders in recent years is due cheap fuel it made more economic sense to extend the life of your 744/767/772 (tel:744/767/772)/330 etc than to buy a 350/787/Neo etc, as the cost of financing the new aircraft outweighs the cost of the extra fuel burn. Cheap fuel was there for a number of reasons but a major one was that Iran can extract oil far more cheaply than Saudi, so were actively flooding the market to hurt the Saudi economy, and under Obama the US was encouraging this to put pressure on Putin.

With sanctions kicking in again on Iran in a matter of weeks, the price will climb again, so we may see new widebody orders as a result.

Now I see we have a current Boeing employee in KenV and a former in tdracer. Is the 778 signicatly heavier than the 77W to allow the extra range? And if so, wouldn’t that make the A35K more efficient up to something like 80% of the 778s range, which is a fairly niche market?

I mean combined number of 77L and A345 built was roughly 100 right?

[Sailvi767]

It’s funny to listen to all these arguments. As several of us keep posting the market has spoken. The airframe is dead.

[KenV]

If the cargo carried makes more money than the extra 200 passengers carried by the 380, can I ask why airlines are increasing the passenger numbers on the 773 by going 10 across in econ rather than 9?It depends a lot on whether the airline can actually consistently sell the additional 200 seats. It's clear that they can sell a few more seats on the 777 by going 10 across, else they wouldn't do it. The other factor is range. It used to take a four engine aircraft to have a range over 7500nm. Now there are three twins (777-200LR, 787 and A350) that can do it routinely, and soon a fourth (777X). One of the A380's biggest selling points (range) is gone and all it has left is passenger capacity. The market for such a large passenger capacity is not only small, but currently limited to one airline. The market is gradually but surely squeezing out the A380. So like the Concorde, its a very impressive machine, but without a viable market.

[KenV]

Until the human element is removed, the potential to forget to put the gear down, the wings up or the flaps out exists. I'm not as positive as you that the crew will catch it.Indeed, and yet there are literally tens of thousands of aircraft operating with retractable landing gear and retractable leading and trailing edge flaps. Clearly the operators and regulators recognize that the advantages far outweigh the risks.

Let's hope Boeing's wing fold config monitor is flawless.Flawless? Why flawless? The landing gear and flap protection systems are far from flawless and the consequences of a failed or misconfigured gear or flaps is far far worse than misconfigured folding wingtip.

I suspect if crews forget anything, it'll be to fold them up after landing and end up whacking things in the gate area.The thing about the gate area is that there are lots and lots of additional eyes in the gate area than just the flight crew. In addition, the gate area has a 25 ft clearance margin. The wing fold only reduces the span of each side by 10 ft. So while entering the gate area with unfolded wingtips will certainly result in a clearance violation, it will not necessarily result in a wingtip impact.

[West Coast]

There were lots of additional crew members, ground personnel, etc looking at plenty of other F’ ups as well.

If it it can be screwed up, it eventually will, saying otherwise ignores the fallible human and technology built by fallable humans. There likely won’t be just one reason but a compilation of them that will place the aircraft in an undesired state.

I’ve read your opinions and generally am in agreement (especially the political realm) but can’t agree with you that humans can be relied upon to the extent you think.

[KenV]

If it it can be screwed up, it eventually will, saying otherwise ignores the fallible human and technology built by fallable humans.There is zero doubt that at some point there will be a foul up regarding the folding wingtips. I never argued otherwise. I have argued that the benefits are worth the risk, just as the benefits of retracting landing gear, retracting leading and trailing edge flaps, engine thrust reversers, speed brakes, landing spoilers, all moving tailplanes, hydraulically powered flight controls, and a bevy of other features that add complexity to the aircraft are worth the risk. Heavens, Concorde had a drooping nose which if it failed would have made the aircraft a real handful at best (impossible at worst) to safely land. Aviation has a long long history of mitigating and accepting the risks brought by increased complexity. The 777X's folding wingtips are no exception in that regard.

[tdracer]

Now I see we have a current Boeing employee in KenV and a former in tdracer. Is the 778 signicatly heavier than the 77W to allow the extra range? And if so, wouldn’t that make the A35K more efficient up to something like 80% of the 778s range, which is a fairly niche market?
The 777X will actually be a bit lighter (MTOW) and carry less fuel than the corresponding 777 models (the GE9X engine will be rated for ~10,000 lbs less thrust than the GE90-115B). The range is from the reduced fuel burn due to the new wing and engines.

[Una Due Tfc]

The 777X will actually be a bit lighter (MTOW) and carry less fuel than the corresponding 777 models (the GE9X engine will be rated for ~10,000 lbs less thrust than the GE90-115B). The range is from the reduced fuel burn due to the new wing and engines.

Thanks TD. Hope retirement is treating you well.

[BAengineer]

It’s funny to listen to all these arguments. As several of us keep posting the market has spoken. The airframe is dead.

I must admit I was thinking the same. There doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that is going to change the perception of the market towards the A380 in the foreseable. Even Airbus would kill it off if it were not for EK.

[ImageGear]

Would someone care to enlighten me as to how the levels of comfort, noise and smoothness of the A350 stack up against the Boeing 777 competition?

IG

[PAX67]

Would someone care to enlighten me as to how the levels of comfort, noise and smoothness of the A350 stack up against the Boeing 777 competition?

IG

A350 is a lot quieter. Comfort and smoothness are hard to quantify, flown CX and SQ regularly on both in J,W & Y. All been comfortable.

[ImageGear]

On the A380, the seat pitch, cabin height and arms reach storage lockers, make for very little stuff around one's feet. Also the sheer size and weight of the A380 seems to facilitate absorption of a lot of turbulence through the wings. In this case, size does seem to matter.

IG.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Would someone care to enlighten me as to how the levels of comfort, noise and smoothness of the A350 stack up against the Boeing 777 competition?

IG

The 777 is noisy. My guess is the 777X will be even worse as they make it lighter. The A380 is one of the best aircraft when it comes to noise in the cabin. I have not paxed on the 350.
Not impressed with the noise levels in the B787 either.
Boeings fly slightly faster than Airbus, maybe that is a factor when it comes to noise?

[Khun Sam]

On the A380, the seat pitch, cabin height and arms reach storage lockers, make for very little stuff around one's feet. Also the sheer size and weight of the A380 seems to facilitate absorption of a lot of turbulence through the wings. In this case, size does seem to matter.

IG.

The cabin depends on the airline. The C Class of EK and QR is fantastic because of the bar, which allows you to stretch your legs and you generally end up meeting nice people over a cocktail or a glass of very decent bubbly. I and plenty others specifically choose their 380s whenever possible. C on SQ is ok too. On LH it's very underwhelming.

[wiggy]

Boeings fly slightly faster than Airbus, maybe that is a factor when it comes to noise?


Not sure that is a universal truth any more, certainly not for the bigbus vs the T7. Whilst each sector is different and different companies have different cruise speed /cost index policies in general from what I’ve seen on ultra longhaul routes a 380 will almost certainly be flying a higher Mach number than a 772 and probably be flying a higher Mach number than a 77W....

[KenV]

A little oh BTW: Boeing is developing a 777-300ER freighter conversion. This freighter is aimed at the volumetric freighter market vs the density freighter marker targeted by the 777F. How does this relate to A380? The big reason for developing the freighter conversion is so that current 777-300ER operators have a secondary market they can sell their used -300ERs to. That's one of the big problems faced by operators of the A380: no freighter version and thus no secondary market.

[Tommy Gavin]

Has anyone done a study on an A380 Combi? Pax on the upper deck and cargo on the 2 lower decks? KLM still uses combi’s on certain routes if I am correct.
Might also be interesting as a “troopcarrier” for the armed forces?

[tdracer]

Has anyone done a study on an A380 Combi? Pax on the upper deck and cargo on the 2 lower decks?
There have been changes in the regulations governing combi type aircraft after some cargo fire related accidents (e.g. SAA Helderberg). Never say never, but it would be very, very difficult to certify a new combi aircraft to those regulations (I believe all the combi's currently in operation were certified to the previous regulations).

[msbbarratt]

I must admit I was thinking the same. There doesn't seem to be anything on the horizon that is going to change the perception of the market towards the A380 in the foreseable. Even Airbus would kill it off if it were not for EK.

Well, we can't really tell. Another way of looking at it is that Airbus know that Emirates are too deeply committed to the A380 to be able to walk away from it just like that, and are prepared to leverage that position to make Emirates pay to keep it alive instead of bearing that cost themselves. Ultimately it's all a game of bluff.

A world economic boom would possibly increase the demand for an airframe like the A380. The aircraft can still be ordered, and if that remains the case all the way to the next upturn in the economy that could (and I must emphatically point out that I've not used the word "would"!) leave Airbus sitting pretty whilst Boeing fail to persuade anyone that their tiny little 777 is worth a dime. I exaggerate purely for effect...

I've occasionally wondered (flights of fancy, etc) just how committed to the A380 Emirates actually are. It's clear they'd prefer a NEOised version, but can't persuade Airbus / RR to do it. This is understandable, especially given RR's current difficulties; they've got to clear their current problem backlog before they commence yet another program. However, I'm wondering if Emirates would ever consider buying a controlling (or sufficiently large) stake in Airbus / RR to force the issue. The combined market capitalisation of both Airbus and Rolls Royce is currently somewhere about the $124billion (I think that's right in US$). Say Dubai spent, what, $40billion buying big stakes. Dubai could probably afford that. Would that be enough for Emirate to be able to "insist" a NEO is done? Is $40bill worth it if it means that they can continue their goal of global dominance of the long haul market by guaranteeing supply of the aircraft large enough and efficient enough to do it?

Like I said, a flight of fancy, but then by ordering so many already they've already demonstrated a willingness to bet pretty big sums.

[Longtimer]

Has anyone done a study on an A380 Combi? Pax on the upper deck and cargo on the 2 lower decks? KLM still uses combi’s on certain routes if I am correct.
Might also be interesting as a “troopcarrier” for the armed forces?

Re troop carrier, likely too big and vulnerable plus I guess field restrictive.

[Matvey]

I've occasionally wondered (flights of fancy, etc) just how committed to the A380 Emirates actually are. It's clear they'd prefer a NEOised version, but can't persuade Airbus / RR to do it. This is understandable, especially given RR's current difficulties; they've got to clear their current problem backlog before they commence yet another program. However, I'm wondering if Emirates would ever consider buying a controlling (or sufficiently large) stake in Airbus / RR to force the issue. The combined market capitalisation of both Airbus and Rolls Royce is currently somewhere about the $124billion (I think that's right in US$). Say Dubai spent, what, $40billion buying big stakes. Dubai could probably afford that. Would that be enough for Emirate to be able to "insist" a NEO is done? Is $40bill worth it if it means that they can continue their goal of global dominance of the long haul market by guaranteeing supply of the aircraft large enough and efficient enough to do it?

Like I said, a flight of fancy, but then by ordering so many already they've already demonstrated a willingness to bet pretty big sums.

$40B for 200 frames is 200M per copy of equity, plus the actual cost of the airplane. They might as well buy a fleet of F-35s for that kind of money. Emirates have a large fleet of 380s because DXB is a pair of dependent parallels and there are strict slot controls, so 380s are the only way to get the necessary capacity on a finite number of operations. (More 380s also means more bodies passing through Dubai Duty Free on their transits, which is a not-insignificant part of the business model.)

Once DWC comes along, capacity constraints will be relieved on one side of the equation. They'll still need 380s for high-capacity or prestige routes to other at-capacity airports (the LHRs and CDGs of the world), but they'd probably much rather fly X+1 779s rather than X 38Ns to a given destination.

[glofish]

Well, we can't really tell. Another way of looking at it is that Airbus know that Emirates are too deeply committed to the A380 to be able to walk away from it just like that, and are prepared to leverage that position to make Emirates pay to keep it alive instead of bearing that cost themselves. Ultimately it's all a game of bluff.

A world economic boom would possibly increase the demand for an airframe like the A380. The aircraft can still be ordered, and if that remains the case all the way to the next upturn in the economy that could (and I must emphatically point out that I've not used the word "would"!) leave Airbus sitting pretty whilst Boeing fail to persuade anyone that their tiny little 777 is worth a dime. I exaggerate purely for effect...

I've occasionally wondered (flights of fancy, etc) just how committed to the A380 Emirates actually are. It's clear they'd prefer a NEOised version, but can't persuade Airbus / RR to do it. This is understandable, especially given RR's current difficulties; they've got to clear their current problem backlog before they commence yet another program. However, I'm wondering if Emirates would ever consider buying a controlling (or sufficiently large) stake in Airbus / RR to force the issue. The combined market capitalisation of both Airbus and Rolls Royce is currently somewhere about the $124billion (I think that's right in US$). Say Dubai spent, what, $40billion buying big stakes. Dubai could probably afford that. Would that be enough for Emirate to be able to "insist" a NEO is done? Is $40bill worth it if it means that they can continue their goal of global dominance of the long haul market by guaranteeing supply of the aircraft large enough and efficient enough to do it?

Like I said, a flight of fancy, but then by ordering so many already they've already demonstrated a willingness to bet pretty big sums.

Today EK is not only committed to the 380, they are stuck with it. Stuck because no one can persuade AB to throw good taxpayer money after the wasted one and develop the aircraft into something affordable and profitable without huge taxpayer discount. Without the latter the 380 would not squirt one sound and without EK's cancellation of 70 (good and now dearly missed) 350ies to the benefit of 40 RR-380ies, RR would have gone broke. In exchange Tim Clark got his "Sir" and HH of Dubai was re-allowed running his horses at Ascot.
Considering all that it seems crystal clear that EK themselves would never ever throw up one dirham to "persuade" AB to build a NEO, TC would just continue to "demand" it and pronounce all other airline managers fools because they do not order the 380.
Dubai buying some stakes at AB? Buying means having money in the first place and if anyone pretends that Dubai could "afford" that, they probably have not set foot and lived in the sandpit lately.
It is actually neither the loving and tweeting passengers (or diligently writing "fans" on here), nor the "proud" operator(s) who will finally decide on the fate of the 380. It is built with an enormous infusion of European tax-money, can most probably never ever be profitable, so its life depends entirely on the willingness of the EU partners to subsidise it eternally for the sake of jobs, share value and pride.

[Volume]

Would someone care to enlighten me as to how the levels of comfort, noise and smoothness of the A350 stack up against the Boeing 777 competition?
They are wolds apart. A350 is significantly more quiet, there is no engine vibration on the A350 while on the 777 and 787 you can strongly feel it if seated close to them (it is enough to make the cutlery on your plate rattle...). In gusty weather the yaw damper fights hard on the 77W, have not experienced it in the recent years, maybe they also improved the design? I remember a flight some 10 years ago where the forward cabin did constant lateral oscillations after each gust which shook me in my seat for hours. No service on that flight, FAs remained seated.
Most of my A380 landings were hard, read about it in some forums as well, might be purely accidental. Otherwise the A380 is great to fly, smooooth and quiet. Size matters.

[RVF750]

They are wolds apart. A350 is significantly more quiet, there is no engine vibration on the A350 while on the 777 and 787 you can strongly feel it if seated close to them (it is enough to make the cutlery on your plate rattle...). In gusty weather the yaw damper fights hard on the 77W, have not experienced it in the recent years, maybe they also improved the design? I remember a flight some 10 years ago where the forward cabin did constant lateral oscillations after each gust which shook me in my seat for hours. No service on that flight, FAs remained seated.
Most of my A380 landings were hard, read about it in some forums as well, might be purely accidental. Otherwise the A380 is great to fly, smooooth and quiet. Size matters.
Turbulence is quite subjective and no two flights are the same. The fact I've had several 777 flights that were perfectly smooth and very nice is no counterpoint, because I simply haven't been on them enough.

It's not size that gives a smooth ride per se. It's mass and wing loading.

[Less Hair]

A350 and 787 load alleviation systems are more modern it seems.

[KenV]

A350 and 787 load alleviation systems are more modern it seems.And the 777X's new wing and control system will be even "more modern."It's not size that gives a smooth ride per se. It's mass and wing loading.Driving wing loading up smooths the flight, but kills efficiency. 777X will have a larger wing to reduce wing loading and improve efficiency. Will that result in a worse ride? Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on how flexible the new composite wing is and how effective the active gust load alleviation system is

Will 777X be noisier? Maybe. Maybe not. The 777X has the same external diameter but larger internal diameter resulting from thinner sidewalls with thinner insulation. That portends a noisy cabin. But the new insulation is supposed to be much more effective than the old insulation, resulting in an allegedly quieter cabin. Boeing has also been working on active cabin noise cancellation systems, so maybe they'll add that. What we do know is that like the 787 the windows will be larger, the cabin altitude lower, the ceiling higher and more "spacious", and the cabin humidity higher. We'll have to wait and see how all this stacks up against the A380 and A350 for overall comfort.

[BAengineer]

A world economic boom would possibly increase the demand for an airframe like the A380. The aircraft can still be ordered, and if that remains the case all the way to the next upturn in the economy that could (and I must emphatically point out that I've not used the word "would"!) leave Airbus sitting pretty whilst Boeing fail to persuade anyone that their tiny little 777 is worth a dime. I exaggerate purely for effect...



We have had a world economic boom for the last 10 years - we are overdue a downturn. If there is a downturn then aircraft sales are going to be hit (along with everything else) and an aircraft that is only profitable on specific routes and which has hardly any used market value would be a brave purchase for any CFO.

[Ancient Mariner]

HiFly A380 chartered by Ving to bring Norwegian tourists home from Mallorca. It has its uses.
Per

[BAengineer]

HiFly are an interesting business, most of their fleet is made up of A340's which was another aircraft type that airlines found uneconomic to operate and couldn't give away. I suppose if you can buy the airframes cheap enough then you can make a profit out of anything - not so sure that is a great market for Airbus though.

[Volume]

And the 777X's new wing and control system will be even "more modern."
It will be maily a "copy and paste" of the 787 while keeping some cockpit commonality with the classic 777s, so it will most probably not be "more modern".

It's not size that gives a smooth ride per se. It's mass and wing loading.
Not entirely. It is also a matter of structural stiffness and resonance frequencies. Many single gusts result in a fading oscilation of the airframe, so you get an "echo" of each gust as the structural answer of the airframe.
Anybody who has flown in the forward end of the MD-11 can tell about the effect of a long fuselage with a heavy mass on one end...
As there is plenty of aerodynamic damping on the wing, mainly the fuselage stiffness drives this behaviour. Wing stiffness however determines how hard single gusts hit the cabin.

The A380 fuselage is short and high, it is enourmously stiff in vertical bending, hence almost no resonance (frequency is mucht to high).

[Foxdeux]

Well, we can't really tell. Another way of looking at it is that Airbus know that Emirates are too deeply committed to the A380 to be able to walk away from it just like that, and are prepared to leverage that position to make Emirates pay to keep it alive instead of bearing that cost themselves. Ultimately it's all a game of bluff.

A world economic boom would possibly increase the demand for an airframe like the A380. The aircraft can still be ordered, and if that remains the case all the way to the next upturn in the economy that could (and I must emphatically point out that I've not used the word "would"!) leave Airbus sitting pretty whilst Boeing fail to persuade anyone that their tiny little 777 is worth a dime. I exaggerate purely for effect...

I've occasionally wondered (flights of fancy, etc) just how committed to the A380 Emirates actually are. It's clear they'd prefer a NEOised version, but can't persuade Airbus / RR to do it. This is understandable, especially given RR's current difficulties; they've got to clear their current problem backlog before they commence yet another program. However, I'm wondering if Emirates would ever consider buying a controlling (or sufficiently large) stake in Airbus / RR to force the issue. The combined market capitalisation of both Airbus and Rolls Royce is currently somewhere about the $124billion (I think that's right in US$). Say Dubai spent, what, $40billion buying big stakes. Dubai could probably afford that. Would that be enough for Emirate to be able to "insist" a NEO is done? Is $40bill worth it if it means that they can continue their goal of global dominance of the long haul market by guaranteeing supply of the aircraft large enough and efficient enough to do it?

Like I said, a flight of fancy, but then by ordering so many already they've already demonstrated a willingness to bet pretty big sums.


The 2008 financial crisis ended long ago, the global world economy has been doing well for a while now. Except for the silly potential trade wars that Trump is threatening us with. But overall the economy is doing very well as signified by rising interest rates. We should in fact expect another recession in 2019/2020 so A380 seems to be doomed based on your analysis.

[KenV]

HiFly are an interesting business, most of their fleet is made up of A340's which was another aircraft type that airlines found uneconomic to operate and couldn't give away..And like the A380 the A340 is a four engine aircraft competing against twins. Failure to learn a lesson?

[KenV]

The 2008 financial crisis ended long ago, the global world economy has been doing well for a while now. Except for the silly potential trade wars that Trump is threatening us with.Not to turn this into a jet blast thread, but the EU blinked and are negotiating with Trump. Trade war averted.

[KenV]

It (wing) will be maily a "copy and paste" of the 787 while keeping some cockpit commonality with the classic 777s, so it will most probably not be "more modern".You appear to have gotten that backwards. The 777X cockpit is based on the 787 cockpit. The 777X wing is quite different from 787 wing and is designed and built in Seattle, unlike 787 wing which is Japanese.[/QUOTE]

[Foxdeux]

Not to turn this into a jet blast thread, but the EU blinked and are negotiating with Trump. Trade war averted.

Trade war averted for now. I'm not anti/pro-Trump but he makes these threats which gets everyone riled up, then decides not to go through with it, making him look like a hero.

[tdracer]

You appear to have gotten that backwards. The 777X cockpit is based on the 787 cockpit. The 777X wing is quite different from 787 wing and is designed and built in Seattle, unlike 787 wing which is Japanese.

To elaborate a bit, Boeing is actually grafting the 787 flight deck (Section 41 in Boeing lingo) onto the 777X (in much the same way the 767 flight deck was used on the original 777). I suspect there will be some changes to improve commonality of the 'X' flight deck with the original, but make no mistake, it's a 787 flight deck.

[Volume]

That´s what I said. The 777X will not be "more modern" than a 787, it will be a 787 with some 777 tradition to ease certification as a derivative and cross-qualification of the crew.
Both designs, the classic 777 and the 787 performed very well (in that respect), why change further ?
It is not like in the late 80s, when the A320 FBW design was revolutionary, and Boeing was forced to improve their designs. There is no revolution on the A350, so no need to react. Except maybe for passenger comfort...

There especially was no revolution on the A380. In hindsight that might be one of the big issues why this tread is existing at all. If Airbus would have been ready to do the A380 in full composites or with a more efficient folding wing, would it have made a difference? I think nobody can tell. There is always a good reason to not reinvent the wheel every time. What seems to have failed is the idea, that staying with a relatively conventional design for the A380 would allow to develop it quickly and to sell it cheap...
It is interesting to see, that the A380 wing is the exact opposite of the 787/777X/A350 wing, aluminum spars and skins with composites ribs vs. Carbon fibre spars and skins with aluminum ribs. It is rare in aviation (and probably in most of the industry) that you have two products on the market which are exactly opposite. Typically this shows that both are not the optimum...

The 777X wing is quite different from 787 wing and is designed and built in Seattle, unlike 787 wing which is Japanese.
Here's the 777X wing secret: It's just a longer 787 Dreamliner wing (https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/05/01/heres-the-777x-wing-secret-its-just-a-longer-787.html)

[White Knight]

Most of my A380 landings were hard

Not sure why. The 380 is an incredibly easy aeroplane to land smoothly without really trying. Maybe wet runways and your pilots wanted to ensure positive wheel spin up?:}

[Torquelink]

Without EK's cancellation of 70 (good and now dearly missed) 350ies to the benefit of 40 RR-380ies, RR would have gone broke. What utter tosh: troubles with the T1000 might send RR bust (although highly unlikely) but not the vagaries in the order book for a type with some 900 on backlog.

[KenV]

Here's the 777X wing secret: It's just a longer 787 Dreamliner wing (https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/05/01/heres-the-777x-wing-secret-its-just-a-longer-787.html)May I suggest you read the entire article and not just the title. Here's the second sentence in that article:“In general, the reason we have have so much confidence in the performance of wing is we’re using the same material systems as the 787 wing. We understand the 787 wing very well,” said Bob Feldmann (https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/view?xai=AKAOjssc-K5e4wySnDj_M-_7TMEc9-oIGQBxPoQT7JaEl9QWPRpioySFFgvboGLugd1o-xovkyXIubzWiFlPsSderGJ1wGFsKsMepaSauQRDYXWe4QZxl7SAjcLozIFaa WknO6pJ4lIQ2Txs9z6h6NIl6m1oZj288TgIj4HSssil-WpHuA779GMEL7oETdUtgGn1Wj0tKB1CvQo4pHnOcElVU1YsRCdUNleUwrwZo spiXT8anumpLjWXPF2UiNbnu7dpwNkjhf88LaLzh1LBfXF28bB9EmhI4dAJ&sai=AMfl-YRd5Ury40-Wg9OCxTrLF7TK1uVRvJ6Q5NfU-_dvA867-ZoBAyJS-6JHshc-QZFKEq9j8yEgWmwpsOltOqfjGlSUCqvApxdLxdOwOPEN&sig=Cg0ArKJSzKi8grn2-bMbEAE&urlfix=1&adurl=https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CICAgKDL4t-INxABGAEyCP4SqNOMW5YR&t=10&cT=http%3A//bizjournals.com&l=https%3A//www.bizjournals.com/seattle/search/results%3Fq%3DBob%2520Feldmann), general manager of the 777X program, in a meeting with journalists on Tuesday. “We’re evolving the architecture of the 787 wing to fit this bigger airplane,” he said.

Note that last statement: "We're evolving the architecture of the 787 wing...." The 777 wing has several structural departures relative to the 787 wing (not the least of which is a wing fold mechanism) and even more aerodynamic departures. It even uses a different airfoil section than 787 and has a different twist. What 787 provided was tons of data that was used to finesse the 777 wing design, both structurally and aerodynamically. “It (wind tunnel testing) is just a confirmation of the models that we used, which are mature models, because based on 787 wing."

Remember, the 787 was Boeing's first composite wing. This was all new territory for Boeing, and LOTS of lessons were learned in its design and fabrication. Those lessons and the later flight performance and operational data were all rolled into the design of the 777 wing. But the wing design itself is significantly different for many reasons.

[pilot9248]

There especially was no revolution on the A380.
That may be (mostly) true for the structure, but if you look at the airframe systems, you will find many technologies/architectures that had never been used before on a commercial aircraft, let alone a very large long-haul aircraft. For example, the A380 is the first commercial aircraft to use 5000 psi hydraulics, with only two conventional hydraulic circuits complemented by electro-hydrostatic and electrical backup actuators. Sure, compared to the "More Electric Aircraft" 787 that may not seem very impressive, but nonetheless, those achievements should be recognised also in the context of the aviation supply chain beyond Airbus.
And if you consider "Pax Ex", I am certain that most passengers would agree that the A380 has indeed revolutionised long-haul air travel.

[BAengineer]

For example, the A380 is the first commercial aircraft to use 5000 psi hydraulics, with only two conventional hydraulic circuits complemented by electro-hydrostatic and electrical backup actuators.

Thats not much of a leap is it? - Concorde had 4000psi hydraulics and that was designed back in the 60's

[Volume]

The 777 wing has several structural departures relative to the 787 wing (not the least of which is a wing fold mechanism) and even more aerodynamic departures. It even uses a different airfoil section than 787 and has a different twist.
You probably want to state "the 777X wing has several structral departues", but it also has a lot of departures from the "classic" 777 wing. It has a different sweep, different area, different span. The trailing edge / high lift system is 787 style, completely different from the "classic" 777, pylon attachment is different as well, further outboard and with two diagonal braces instead of one.
The 77X wing is much more 787 than 777.

you will find many technologies/architectures that had never been used before on a commercial aircraft ... with only two conventional hydraulic circuits
You mean like the 737 since the 60s? Aircraft like 747 and L1011 had 4, the next generation had 3, now we have 2. That is no revolution, that´s the way you can go with more reliable systems these days.
I agree that there has been a lot of evolution compared to A330/340, but nothing like the A320 (which by the way has a very conservative, conventional structure), nothing groundbreaking.
Which also is true for the 777X, and does not necessarily mean that it must fail for this reason. A lot of very successful aircraft have just been evolutions or just state of the art design. A lot of revolutionary aircraft failed.

And if you consider "Pax Ex", I am certain that most passengers would agree that the A380 has indeed revolutionised long-haul air travel.
Compared to what the 747 once meant? I don´t think so. Except for the noise level, there is nothing special on the A380.

[pilot9248]

BAengineer, I believe it is the combination of all the characteristics listed (within a commercial air transport system) that is significant. It is not just about the system pressure. Military aircraft have been using 5000 psi hydraulics for a long time. A380 and 787 are much larger than any of those, or even Concorde (which is not a good benchmark in the context of this thread).

Volume, apples and oranges I'd say. How do you intend to power more than two independent circuits with only two engines? Besides, you "conveniently" left out a crucial part of my sentence in your quote.
Perhaps you could say that the A380 is a very expensive technology demonstrator? Subsequent aircraft will certainly benefit from the operational experience gained.

Regarding your last point: Is there anything "special" on any aircraft these days?

[Turbine D]

Is there anything "special" on any aircraft these days?
One item that comes to mind are high bypass turbo jet engines that develop 115K pounds of thrust. :ok:

[glofish]

. What utter tosh: troubles with the T1000 might send RR bust (although highly unlikely) but not the vagaries in the order book for a type with some 900 on backlog.

Well, it's like a flashback of the 2007/8, isn't it ......

https://m.gulfnews.com/business/aviation/rolls-royce-flies-into-loss-on-trent-engine-trouble-1.2260677

[QUOTE]=​​​​​Used by the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A380 superjumbo, the engines (1000) have seen some parts wear quicker than expected, forcing Rolls to carry out repairs[QUOTE]

[donpizmeov]

Introducing the hardest-working performer in the travel business: Hi Fly’s Airbus A380! Fresh from a limited engagement in the bright lights of New York and London, the A380 will soon move on to Paris (http://atwonline.com/leasing/air-austral-wet-lease-hi-fly-a380-grounded-787-inspected) for another limited engagement transporting tourists to the beaches and volcano of La Reunion. The venue for the A380 may be different, but the mission is the same: to bail out an airline struggling with downtime on its Dreamliners.

A copy and past from Forbes .

[glad rag]

Thats not much of a leap is it? - Concorde had 4000psi hydraulics and that was designed back in the 60's

Perhaps 1/5 increase in pressure isn't "much" but the redundancy built into the system certainly is. The fusion between hydraulic and electrical power to provide this redundency is staggering.

I have posted the diagram before, but I'm sure it is available online now.

[Vessbot]

Volume, apples and oranges I'd say. How do you intend to power more than two independent circuits with only two engines?

With a RAT/ADG. Honest question, did the 3 holers have one? Do the 747/A380?

[donpizmeov]

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-787-dreamliner-airbus-a350-long-thin-routes-737-757-a321-a320-a8486896.html

Seems wide body now only refers to the crew.