Another A380 Woe? [Archive]

KenV

10th Oct 2018, 16:07

Airbus has struggled for years to sell more A380s. But in January the A380 program was tossed a lifeline when Emirates agreed to buy another 36. But wait. The purchase of those 36 new Super Jumbos was contingent on significant fuel burn and performance improvements on the engines. While not an NEO (New Engine Option) the "old" engines needed to show a marked improvement in both fuel burn and overall performance. There's been lots of advances in turbo fan technology the past decade, so no big deal, right? Not to so fast. A380 has two engine options offered by two engine manufacturers: the Engine Alliance GP7000 and the Rolls-Royce Trent 900. The Engine Alliance (GE and P&W) have stated flatly they are not interested in making the investment to upgrade the GP7000. GP7000 powers about 60% of A380s. And R-R has just announced that 36 shipsets (about 150 engines including spares) is not nearly enough to cover the costs to upgrade the Trent 900, so they are unlikely to invest in the upgrade either. So to get the upgraded engines Airbus needs to sell more A380s. But to sell more A380s, Airbus needs to guarantee enough engine sales to make the investment worthwhile to R-R. And so far they have not been able to get anywhere close to doing that. The upshot is that there is currently no path for Airbus to obtain engines with the mandatory fuel burn and performance improvements Airbus has contracted for with Emirates. So, is this the final nail in the coffin for A380? Or will Emirates relent and accept A380s with engines that don't meet their performance spec?

DaveReidUK

10th Oct 2018, 16:30

Or will Emirates relent and accept A380s with engines that don't meet their performance spec?

That depends on how much they need the aircraft. So probably yes.

lomapaseo

10th Oct 2018, 17:17

Now is not the time to agonise over a trade-off.

I can't believe they planned their routes around pie-in-the-sky

er340790

11th Oct 2018, 00:39

msbbarratt

12th Oct 2018, 06:43

Yup - further evidence of the 30+ year move (stagnation) in commercial aviation around widebody twins for long haul and C20 narrowbody twins for the short haul.

Oh, for something INTERESTING....! Yawn.

There's some moves towards building small supersonics. That would be more interesting, but possibly still twins

KenV

12th Oct 2018, 11:02

That depends on how much they need the aircraft. So probably yes.

Need? It's pretty unlikely they planned their entire operation around a single aircraft that is not even on the design boards yet, much less in production. It'll be interesting to see if Airbus cannot deliver the upgrades, will Emirates go with the non upgraded A380, or with the new 777X?

DaveReidUK

12th Oct 2018, 14:31

Need? It's pretty unlikely they planned their entire operation around a single aircraft that is not even on the design boards yet, much less in production?

You misunderstand my post, it wasn't about the enhanced aircraft, but about the likelihood of Emirates taking more of the current A380 if push comes to shove.

It'll be interesting to see if Airbus cannot deliver the upgrades, will Emirates go with the non upgraded A380.

Exactly.

JayMatlock

13th Oct 2018, 12:39

Sailvi767

13th Oct 2018, 13:13

Jet engines usually get overhauled not replaced.

DaveReidUK

13th Oct 2018, 14:31

Or it could be profitable to replace existing A380' engines with new ones that burn less fuel ?

Retrofitting newer engines to airframes that have been flying for several years (which is presumably what you mean) rarely makes economic sense and it's hard to see that it would for the A380 either.

evansb

13th Oct 2018, 14:44

The Douglas DC-8 Super 70 Series was an exception. The DC-8-71, DC-8-72 and DC-8-73 were straightforward conversions of the -61, -62 and -63 primarily involving replacement of the JT3D engines with more fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56) high-bypass turbofans with new nacelles and pylons. A total of 110 60-Series DC-8s were converted by the time the program ended in 1988.

lomapaseo

13th Oct 2018, 14:56

evansb

13th Oct 2018, 15:16

Air Canada, Delta, FedEx, Flying Tiger, United, UPS, VASP, LAP, Condor, and Lufthansa Cargo, come to mind.

Cammacorp contracted MDC Long Beach for engineering support while conversion work was completed by MDC’s Tulsa plant, Delta, Air Canada and UTA Industries. The Super 70s were about 70% quieter than the Super 60 Series and between 18% and 25% more fuel efficient than the JT3D, depending on the model.

WHBM

13th Oct 2018, 15:30

Quite a lot of the early generation jets were re-engined soon after introduction, as the technology was advanced. DC8s and (particularly) 707s were done. I believe American Airlines had about 50 turbojet 707s within a few years of introduction, and re-engined them all with turbofans.

evansb

13th Oct 2018, 15:36

Indeed. American Airlines also converted its 720s to 720B standard. (Improved variant with four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofan engines).

DaveReidUK

13th Oct 2018, 19:10

Yes, all valid examples (as was the 727RE, come to that), but with the A380 we're not talking about the kind of step-change that replacing turbojets with turbofans represented, or replacing first-generation turbofans with second-generation ones.

And not forgetting that all of those engine programs had other applications as well, which can't be said for an upgraded Trent 900.

tdracer

13th Oct 2018, 22:18

Jet engines usually get overhauled not replaced.

It's quite common for the engines on a high time aircraft to actually have more operational time (since new) than the airframe - I've seen engines that were approaching 100k hours (obviously overhauled several times).
New run engines are typically good for between 10,000 and 20,000 hours before overhaul - short haul, high cycle engines tend to the low end, long haul/low cycle engines toward the high end - sometimes north of 25k hours before the first overhaul.
Overhaul doesn't return the engine to 'like new' - so after the first overhaul, subsequent overhauls come more frequently, roughly half the time between overhaul of new production engines.
As DR noted, retrofit re-engine programs need a huge improvement before they become cost effective. What are common are incremental improvements - things that show up in new production engines become available for retrofit into older engines during overhaul. Such improvements are generally small - a quarter percent here, a tenth percent there, but add up. The CFM56-7 engines being produced now have several percent better fuel burn than the ones produced 20 years ago - made up a dozen or more small improvements. But it's hard (and usually expensive) to squeeze those improvements out of an existing engine. Rolls will be hard pressed to provide the rumored 2% improvement promised - more so since they're only looking at a market of a few hundred engines to spread the costs (CFM had the luxury of spreading the improvement costs over thousands of engines)
But if you want a big improvement, you need a new engine design - and that's a lot of money.

msbbarratt

14th Oct 2018, 06:03

Rolls will be hard pressed to provide the rumoured 2% improvement promised - more so since they're only looking at a market of a few hundred engines to spread the costs (CFM had the luxury of spreading the improvement costs over thousands of engines)

I guess it depends on how much commonality there is across their range of engines. RR once found that bits of some Trent or other were easily put into the (then) venerable RB211? (though I think that was for 757s, of which there were a substantial number...)

One thing I think we can be certain of, at least at present. Given the problems RR have had recently, they're going to be quite conservative in what they'll take on. Or at least their shareholders will be hoping so. Who knows.

Bigpants

14th Oct 2018, 08:29

So do Emirates have enough pilots for the A380 fleet?

donpizmeov

14th Oct 2018, 18:21

It depends on how you define “enough”

deSitter

15th Oct 2018, 00:00

GrahamO

15th Oct 2018, 11:21

Interesting. I think airports in Dubai etc. are bound to see less traffic as very long range flights multiply..

Could you explain a little further as that makes no sense to me - ULR may multiply but it'll never replace n flights a day between major capital cities and Dubai surely ?

krismiler

15th Oct 2018, 11:59

The Singapore Airlines flight to New York carries far fewer passengers than a normal A350 flight but they are premium passengers rather than discount economy fare payers. What if airlines start offering low density first and business class ULH flights between major cities and leave the economy passengers to do the connecting flights via the usual hubs ?

eg. a non stop LHR - SYD flight might be quite attractive to those who can afford it and could see a reduction in premium passengers connecting through DXB. Effectively an aircraft would be split in two with the front half going non stop and the rear half refueling en route.

Airlines such as Emirates could see a change in passenger make up and a corresponding drop in revenue as their Platinum and Gold members go non stop instead. They could become the new low cost carriers as they chase the lower end of the market.

Obviously its not a total game changer as only certain routes would support an all premium operation, SYD - JFK would be another possibility, and many long haul routes which previously required a stop can be easily done in one hop with a mixed cabin.

Unlike the A380 which is a stand alone aircraft designed for a particular niche, the A350 long range is simply a derivative of an existing, successful type and if the concept of premium ULH doesn't work it's still a B777 competitor.

ImageGear

15th Oct 2018, 12:24

Just my very humble contribution...

Throughout a long career in business, I have observed a significant decline in the amount of business travel being conducted by multinationals. In the 70's, and 80's, all of my travel was in J, with a couple of F's when the trips were time critical. In the 90's, commuting between Southern Africa, Europe and the Mid-West and California over several years. Eventually it became J for over 6 hour trips only, and the rest in economy.

Video conferencing was introduced and after a slow start, became more acceptable and the family enjoyed more of my presence for longer.

Consequently it seems to me that the overall pool of business class punters must be getting considerably smaller. (Unless being compensated for, by the Pacific Rim economies).

If ULH is considered to be a premium product, will enough revenue be available from the pool to make this sector sustainable in the longer term? or is OVERALL airline profitability looking for ever more like a LoCo model.. I'm not talking about a few high rollers because they always have the option of private jets, or "business only" configurations. I suspect that the answer is "not long term sustainable" which would imply that ULH has limited life. Then A380 will become more viable.

IG

krismiler

15th Oct 2018, 13:11

The A350 has cracked open the possibility of extreme range non stop flights, at the moment limited to premium passengers because of the inability to carry a standard cabin with the fuel required. As technology improves it may be possible to fly these ranges with normal cabins opening up huge numbers of possible routes. Dubai's success is down to the fact that it's possible to fly non stop from Dubai to anywhere with modern aircraft such as the B777, which means that any two points on earth can be connected via Dubai.

In the 1970s, Bahrain was an important fuel stop as aircraft didn't have much range, once the B744 came on the scene it could easily be overflown by aircraft going to the far east. Gulf Air could easily have been Emirates if they'd taken advantage of their position and utilized the capabilities that the new generation of aircraft held.

However ULH is very inefficient fuel wise as fuel is simply dead weight costing money to fly until it's actually burnt in the engines releasing its energy. Typically a ton of fuel on departure gives around 250 kgs available at the end of the flight, 3/4 of it being used just to carry it along. A lot depends on the price of oil and improvements in aircraft performance, in thirty years time London to Sydney non stop with a standard mix of passengers may be routine. Stopping in Dubai for long haul flight connections might get to be as common as refueling in Shannon prior to crossing the Atlantic, though it is likely to retain importance on routes which can't support direct services.

TeachMe

15th Oct 2018, 14:53

Hi krismiler,

To what extent is the cost of carrying fuel on ULH offset by the cost of a cycling the plane through a landing and paying airport and fueling fees? On the other hand are crew costs also higher on ULH than two half-segments?

TME

krismiler

15th Oct 2018, 15:16

Depends on the price of fuel, cost of landing fees, crew wages and numerous other factors which airline planning departments weigh up when trying to decide if a route will be profitable or not. The difference between being in the black or in the red is often very slender with thin profit margins. Some airlines have advantages such as access to cheap labour or a favourable location. A fleet mix which may have been ideal 10 years ago might be unsuitable today.

It's a question of getting the numbers right which is notoriously difficult to do consistently.

horizon flyer

15th Oct 2018, 15:44

esa-aardvark

15th Oct 2018, 16:51

Horizon flyer,
much though I support all kind of high speed (space) activities,
I do wonder about the accelerations involved in this plan.
John

msbbarratt

15th Oct 2018, 17:00

WHBM

15th Oct 2018, 19:50

Airlines such as Emirates could see a change in passenger make up and a corresponding drop in revenue as their Platinum and Gold members go non stop instead. They could become the new low cost carriers as they chase the lower end of the market.
The ability of a hub operator like Emirates is not driven by the few ultra-long hauls that will come along. London to Sydney, or Singapore to New York (which might even overfly Dubai in certain wind conditions) are one thing, but Dubai allows Edinburgh to Cape Town, or Nice to Hong Kong, or 2,002 other combinations, all with one stop. The numbers of each may be quite a small n, but n times a few thousand adds up.

Ian W

16th Oct 2018, 11:13

Could you explain a little further as that makes no sense to me - ULR may multiply but it'll never replace n flights a day between major capital cities and Dubai surely ?

Many of the flights to Dubai are for passengers not going to Dubai but flying through. I fly to Atlanta often twice a week but I have only wanted to actually go to Atlanta about three times in the last 5 years. As soon as the thin ULR routes allow pax to go direct to destination then the number going to interchange hubs like Dubai will reduce to a level that an aircraft with a 400 seat capacity cannot be justified. This is especially the case with the fuel economy (and freight carriage) available from smaller twin jet widebodies. It is probable that several hubs will see their interchange traffic reduce and it may affect the airlines based at those hubs in the same way that direct flights from low cost carriers cherry picking attractive thin routes, have reduced the market for spoke-hub-spoke flights from the majors in the US.

DaveReidUK

16th Oct 2018, 12:31

Many of the flights to Dubai are for passengers not going to Dubai but flying through. I fly to Atlanta often twice a week but I have only wanted to actually go to Atlanta about three times in the last 5 years. As soon as the thin ULR routes allow pax to go direct to destination then the number going to interchange hubs like Dubai will reduce to a level that an aircraft with a 400 seat capacity cannot be justified. This is especially the case with the fuel economy (and freight carriage) available from smaller twin jet widebodies. It is probable that several hubs will see their interchange traffic reduce and it may affect the airlines based at those hubs in the same way that direct flights from low cost carriers cherry picking attractive thin routes, have reduced the market for spoke-hub-spoke flights from the majors in the US.

Another way to look at the "hub bypass" proposition is to consider how many of the passengers on those 400 seat flights into DXB (or any hub) will be heading for the same ultimate destination. It's only those pax (or rather, a proportion of them who aren't too price-sensitive), plus - possibly - any pax making the same connection over a different hub, who represent the market for a direct flight between the two spoke points.

For all the possible connection opportunities over the hub (as pointed out above), only a very small proportion will turn out to be potential hub bypass markets.

esa-aardvark

16th Oct 2018, 12:53

Are all 'business class' passengers actually travelling for business ?
I retired in 1996 and pay my own fare. I travel long haul Europe - Australasia
every year, always business or first. (Actually I've lately started doing it by ship) I see lots of people with children
or older people travelling business. Anyone know what the demographic is for business.
My son is not permitted to travel business (UK-USA) by his employer.

BAengineer

16th Oct 2018, 15:48

I travel long haul Europe - Australasia
every year, always business or first. (Actually I've lately started doing it by ship)

That sounds great - a lot more classy and refined than being squeezed into an aluminum tube for 20 hours.

WHBM

16th Oct 2018, 19:55

As soon as the thin ULR routes allow pax to go direct to destination then the number going to interchange hubs like Dubai will reduce to a level that an aircraft with a 400 seat capacity cannot be justified.This is ignoring that Dubai etc connections have already seen a considerable ending of direct flights that were already well within capability of established types. Europe to Cape Town, for example, had a number of nonstops which have been lost. BA has given up quite a number of African destinations it served nonstop from London because of this. Twice-daily connections from every European to every key African destination, and many other pairs, have seen the end of what used to be a longstanding nonstop market. As US legacy hub carriers will tell you, frequency trumps all.

tdracer

16th Oct 2018, 21:13

As US legacy hub carriers will tell you, frequency trumps all.
True, but is the worlds largest airplane the answer? Two/day A380s - which you may not be able to fill, or three/day big twins? And if you can't always fill three big twins because of seasonal changes, you can drop it down to two/day when things are slow, then increase back to three when the demand recovers.
Don't get me wrong, from a passenger perspective the whale is a wonder aircraft - but from an operator standpoint it only makes sense if you can consistently fill it. For a long time, operators needed the 747 because it was the only way to get the range. But for the last decade or so, big twins have had range equal to the big quads, with better operating economics, and passenger 747s have been slowing disappearing, replaced not with the A380 but with big twins.
Few people see than changing in favor of the A380.

horizon flyer

16th Oct 2018, 22:28

Marvellous though Skylon may well turn out to be (and the omens are good, best of luck to them!), it is not going to be a mass transit system. So whilst some very exotic "airline" service might be offered, for us mere millionaires and below we'll be slumming it on a mere aircraft at < M1.0, but likely with better in flight food.

They are talking of a three hundred seater at economy prices.

msbbarratt

16th Oct 2018, 22:49

True, but is the worlds largest airplane the answer? Two/day A380s - which you may not be able to fill, or three/day big twins? And if you can't always fill three big twins because of seasonal changes, you can drop it down to two/day when things are slow, then increase back to three when the demand recovers.
Don't get me wrong, from a passenger perspective the whale is a wonder aircraft - but from an operator standpoint it only makes sense if you can consistently fill it. For a long time, operators needed the 747 because it was the only way to get the range. But for the last decade or so, big twins have had range equal to the big quads, with better operating economics, and passenger 747s have been slowing disappearing, replaced not with the A380 but with big twins.
Few people see than changing in favor of the A380.

One might argue that the "big twins" are actually quite small, if one takes the A380 as defining "big"!

Also an A380 is a whole hunk more real estate flying between A and B. It allows a different sort of trade; instead of ramping up / down flight frequency, one might ramp up / down economy / business ratio, quality, on board facilities, etc. In a world of widespread sameiness all over the industry, room to be different is valued by some operators, and passengers that pay for it enjoy it.

So perhaps the A380's problem is that a lot of airlines have played through the quality / capacity trade in their heads, and resolved to end up at the dense capacity end point serving existing market shares without actually bothering with the bit in between.

msbbarratt

16th Oct 2018, 23:00

They are talking of a three hundred seater at economy prices.

Are they? That's changed from years ago!

Actually what I think they will succeed most with is satellite launch. Some of their earlier plans were not that ambitious - modest weights to LEO. However, in-orbit automated satellite assembly is a growing trend in the industry. If that becomes commonplace, what matters is ease / frequency of launch, not payload on an individual launch. Skylon stands a good chance of being flyable several times a day, ultimately. Whilst Space X are still towing their barge back to shore, Skylon could be topping up with H2 and getting off the ground again with the next slice of satellite, home in time for tea & biscuits.

krismiler

16th Oct 2018, 23:14

Most other hub airlines have a narrow body fleet, an area in which EK has been lacking. Possibly they have been doing so well with wide bodies they didn’t see any need. If Dubai starts getting bypassed they will need to compensate for this, whilst still a excellent connection point I feel that the mix will involve more second tier and few first tier cities. Instead of being an A380/B777 operator, EK could become a B777/B737 operator.

Trinity 09L

16th Oct 2018, 23:40

Can I mention the long haul cruise passenger traffic. EK now own a major travel agent and they funnel outward and inbound pax through DBX.These are Asian, SA, OZ and NZ pax. I have done Osaka DBX to LHR. Also sea (persons) are forced to use EK by there employers. The gradual return of the kangaroo route will avoid DBX.

ImageGear

17th Oct 2018, 14:16

...the mix will involve more second tier and fewer first tier cities

EK has a daily A380 service into Nice, which by all accounts is fairly well subscribed. (Even as prices are well above average for a similar route). EK is also doing A380 into Manchester and a number of other "second tier" cities around the world. It would therefore suggest to me that EK still has a dog in this race with the A380.

IG

Sailvi767

17th Oct 2018, 14:18

The biggest threat to the Middle East airlines is the instability in the region.

Blohm

17th Oct 2018, 15:47

Horizon flyer,
much though I support all kind of high speed (space) activities,
I do wonder about the accelerations involved in this plan.
John
I do wonder about ELP in this case...

Trav a la

17th Oct 2018, 19:45

EK has a daily A380 service into Nice, which by all accounts is fairly well subscribed. (Even as prices are well above average for a similar route). EK is also doing A380 into Manchester and a number of other "second tier" cities around the world. It would therefore suggest to me that EK still has a dog in this race with the A380.

IG

Actually, 3 per day and all usually full or very close to full. MAN was the first none capital city to welcome the A380 and it's been a great success. Especially considering the huge number of other ME flights per week from the likes of Saudi, Qatar, Etihad and Oman.

krismiler

18th Oct 2018, 00:46

EK has the ability to switch capacity around the network, high season on one route usually corresponds to low season on another and the aircraft type can be varied accordingly.

Manchester and Birmingham have populations in excess of 2.5 million depending on where you draw the boundaries, and a significant catchment area given the UK population density and income level.

The A380 works brilliantly for some airlines on some routes but doesn’t have the versatility of a big twin. When it was first introduced it was ahead of the B777 but still didn’t sell that well, now it is now being leapfrogged by the next generation of mega twins but isn’t selling in sufficient numbers to justify the investment required to offer a NG version. A catch 22 situation.

Airbus and Boeing have to commit most of their resources to their A320/B737 replacement programs. Narrow bodies account for 78% of the world airliner fleet and the new models have to be got right. Both manufacturers are starting at the same time with a clean sheet of paper. A difference of a few percentage points in a particular area can easily result in the loss or gain of hundreds of sales.

For large aircraft, the mega twin is more likely to be the future, something close to the A380s capacity but able to operate from a larger range of airports.

Emirates will still be operating in the future as Dubai’s position is unbeatable, but they are more likely to serve as a transit point between major to secondary and secondary to secondary cities rather than major to major. London to Sydney is likely to be direct where as Glasgow to Brisbane will require a connection.

Turkish Airlines fly to more destinations than any other as they have a narrow body fleet, beyond the A380 Emirates need a versatile mega twin for the hubs and a new generation narrow body for the secondary cities if they want to retain their lead.

atakacs

21st Oct 2018, 14:27

to get back to the a380 does anyone know the status of the "plus" ? Is the latest Emirates order for a plus or for the "classic" ? Is it actually for sale ?

DaveReidUK

21st Oct 2018, 16:26

to get back to the a380 does anyone know the status of the "plus" ? Is the latest Emirates order for a plus or for the "classic" ? Is it actually for sale ?

Emirates may have expressed a desire/need for an "A380+", but as this point in time it does not exist, nor is there any certainty that it will ever. So any firm EK orders can only be for the current aircraft.

Kerosene Kraut

21st Oct 2018, 17:03

The "A380plus" as presented at Paris did not move forward.
However the interior is changed to offer more seats where the front steps had been inside. There are only smaller stairs left because most passengers embark and disembark through "their" level. AFAIK ANA might take this new interior.

Deltasierra010

21st Oct 2018, 17:15

This is the future in 30 years so will Dubai still be needed?

https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre/flight-applications

London to Sydney direct in 4.5 hours cruise at marc 5.3 running on liquid hydrogen.

The future is always here today but generally takes 20 years to arrive.

There is one big problem with hydrogen - energy density, although it is somewhat better pound for pound than conventional liquid fuels, liquid hydrogen is very light, it needs 5 times the volume, not only that it needs to be contained in very heavy cylinders at 5000psi and more. There is plenty of experience of supersonic and hypersonic flight and we know it can be achieved but at massive cost, the laws of physics are not going to change, hypersonic flight at safety standards and cost the paying public will accept is a pipe dream.

Hydrogen is a very elegant solution to energy in the future but as a transport fuel it has a lot of problems, it is far more efficient to to use the solar power to charge batteries rather than produce hydrogen, only to convert it back into electricity to
owner a vehicle. Or in the case of aviation convert it into a liquid fuel that can be contained at ambient temperature and pressure, it can be done but not efficiently .

Less Hair

25th Oct 2018, 07:54

Is there any news on EK's final engine selection for their next batch?

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2018, 08:11

Is there any news on EK's final engine selection for their next batch?

All of the 50-odd A380s that EK have on order are RR powered. I can't see any more EA powered A380s ever being built.

Less Hair

25th Oct 2018, 08:37

It had been announced this way but the deal must still be finally signed. The plan had been to do that by the end of october according to Sir Tim. I wondered if it has happened already? Has a slight bit of program significance if I might say so.

Torquelink

25th Oct 2018, 08:40

All of the 50-odd A380s that EK have on order are RR powered. I can't see any more EA powered A380s ever being built.

I understand that the engine competition has been re-opened because a) performance of the T900 thus far in failing to achieve promised fuel burn and reliability targets and b) EA making very aggressive bid.

KelvinD

25th Oct 2018, 09:01

Info out there shows all outstanding Emirates orders appear to be for A380-842 models, so Rolls Royce.

WHBM

25th Oct 2018, 13:04

Info out there shows all outstanding Emirates orders appear to be for A380-842 models, so Rolls Royce.
Not just for Emirates, but for anybody. The last EA engined aircraft was built in 2017, and just a handful then, so the engines were likely built some time before. Does the production space and tooling for new EA engines even exist any more ?

startall4

29th Oct 2018, 15:26

The future's bright, the future's 4 engined Boeing 😉

KenV

29th Oct 2018, 15:44

to get back to the a380 does anyone know the status of the "plus" ? Is the latest Emirates order for a plus or for the "classic" ? Is it actually for sale ?May I suggest you read the original post. The Emirates order is for the version with improved engines and other upgrades. But EA has already stated they won't invest in their engine under any circumstance and RR says they won't invest unless there are orders for significantly more than 36 shipsets. So Airbus is caught in a classic catch 22. They can't sell more A380s unless they get new engines, but they can't get new engines unless they sell more A380s. Hence the "A380 Woe" of the title.

DaveReidUK

29th Oct 2018, 15:59

May I suggest you read the original post. The Emirates order is for the version with improved engines and other upgrades. But EA has already stated they won't invest in their engine under any circumstance and RR says they won't invest unless there are orders for significantly more than 36 shipsets. So Airbus is caught in a classic catch 22. They can't sell more A380s unless they get new engines, but they can't get new engines unless they sell more A380s. Hence the "A380 Woe" of the title.

In other words, the Emirates "order" isn't an order in any generally accepted sense of the word.

KenV

29th Oct 2018, 17:08

In other words, the Emirates "order" isn't an order in any generally accepted sense of the word.What definition are you using? Boeing and Airbus took orders for several hundreds of 787s, A350s, 747-8s, A320NEOs, 737MAXs, and A330NEOs while those aircraft were still in development and well before those aircraft entered production, just like the enhanced A380. Every one of those programs (except the 747-8) required the engine manufacturers to make huge investments in new/enhanced engines. What makes the A380 different is that Airbus is unable to get enough orders for the enhanced A380 to get the engine manufacturers to agree to invest in the engine improvements needed to make the enhanced version possible. And now that one engine manufacturer has publicly stated they flat out won't invest and the other has said they are very unlikely to make the needed investments, Airbus is having even greater difficulty selling the airplane. In other words, they're now caught in a catch 22 that will be difficult to break out of. Will they be able to get Emirates to accept the standard A380 instead? Maybe. Maybe not. But one reason Emirates insisted on the enhanced version was to make sure the A380 had a future. An airplane with no upgrade path is a poor long term investment. Emirates may have to gradually change their business model/route planning to account for the eventual demise of the A380.

DaveReidUK

29th Oct 2018, 17:58

What definition are you using?

I'm using "order" in the sense of an agreement between an airline and a manufacturer for the supply of something that the latter is prepared to deliver.

The A380 Plus doesn't currently fall into that category, and probably won't ever.

Less Hair

29th Oct 2018, 18:12

So you think Emirates will only sign their next batch order if some “A380plus” should become available for them right now?

DaveReidUK

29th Oct 2018, 18:28

So you think Emirates will only sign their next batch order if some “A380plus” should become available for them right now?

No, I think precisely the opposite.

With no realistic prospect of an A380 Plus, Emirates will order more of the current aircraft.

atakacs

29th Oct 2018, 22:43

But one reason Emirates insisted on the enhanced version was to make sure the A380 had a future. An airplane with no upgrade path is a poor long term investment.

Where did you find this in publicly available information ? Or are you with EK / Airbus ?

AFAIK there are no "official" details on the specifics of said order. Happy to be disproved.

GrahamO

30th Oct 2018, 10:40

The Emirates order is for the version with improved engines and other upgrades.

The Emirates order does not however include any engines, so the claimed order is not as stated above.

rideforever

30th Oct 2018, 10:45

RufusXS

30th Oct 2018, 13:56

kcockayne

30th Oct 2018, 14:02

The A380 is an ugly elephant of a plane, and I wouldn't underestimate the effect this has on its sales. For investors, airlines, countries, and passengers, travel is not just about money and statistics .... you are supposed to be setting sail on a voyage ....
Europeans have become very mental of late and lost their passion.
Oh no it isn’t. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - & in this beholder’s eye, it is beautiful. Not only that but, it is the best & most comfortable aeroplane to fly in. I don’t ever expect it to happen, but I wish many more airlines would order it, or extend their existing fleets.

Tech Guy

30th Oct 2018, 14:29

R-R has just announced that 36 shipsets (about 150 engines including spares) is not nearly enough to cover the costs to upgrade the Trent 900, so they are unlikely to invest in the upgrade either.

Out of interest, how many engine sales would be needed to make the R&D viable?
Could the upgraded engine be used in other aircraft to provide additional sales?

RufusXS

30th Oct 2018, 14:43

This is a good article from earlier this month (apologies if it's been previously posted). The article indicates that Emirates is requiring RR to meet the standards that were promised when they switched from EA to RR, so really more about fixing the existing product vs an upgrade.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-08/airbus-a380-saving-emirates-deal-said-stalled-on-engine-impasse

tdracer

31st Oct 2018, 02:06

Out of interest, how many engine sales would be needed to make the R&D viable?
Could the upgraded engine be used in other aircraft to provide additional sales?
The R&D costs are highly variable depending on the nature of the changes. but engine changes don't come cheap. What typically happens is the engine company finds something and implements it into their newest engine design. Assuming it works out (they don't always), they may look at using it in an older engine design. Sometimes that works great and they get a significant improvement in fuel burn and/or EGT margin (which basically means time on wing) on the older engine design. Sometimes, it fails miserably (often for reasons that they never fully understand). Example - ~20 years ago GE implemented a new compressor design ('3d aero) on the GE90 - and it worked great with a big improvements in fuel burn and a corresponding drop in EGT. So GE tried to implement the same technology on the CF6-80C2 compressor - but the results were so disappointing on the CF6 that I don't think they even bothered to certify the change.

As far as being able to use the updated engine on other aircraft, there are two problems with that. First off, both the GP7000 and the Trent 900 were pretty much point designs for the A380 and are not really optimum for any of the big twins. Second, the engine designs are relatively old - the 737 (MAX), 747 (-8), 777 (X), 787, A320 (NEO), A330 (NEO), and A350 already have newer, more efficient engines available. In fact, of the currently produced large commercial airliners, the only one with engines older than the A380 is the 767 - and both the GP and Trent are too big to be suitable for the 767.

DaveReidUK

31st Oct 2018, 07:49

First off, both the GP7000 and the Trent 900 were pretty much point designs for the A380 and are not really optimum for any of the big twins.

That's an interesting point, and clearly true in the case of those engines.

But there's no fundamental reason why an engine, or at least an engine family, can't be targeted at both big twins and 4-holers - the PW4000 and CF6 have done pretty well in both markets, for example, even arguably the GEnx.

The various members of the Trent series, on the other hand, are more akin to distant cousins than siblings. :O

Less Hair

31st Oct 2018, 10:39

So have they finally ordered any engines for their "firm" A380s?

GrahamO

31st Oct 2018, 10:52

So have they finally ordered any engines for their "firm" A380s?

No they have not.

KenV

31st Oct 2018, 14:51

Out of interest, how many engine sales would be needed to make the R&D viable?
RR has not said how many it would take, only a lot more than 36 shipsets plus spares (which would be a bit more than 150 engines)
Could the upgraded engine be used in other aircraft to provide additional sales?No other aircraft uses either the Trent 900 or GP7200. Both are in the 75,000 to 80,000 lbf thrust class, which no other aircraft uses. The A330NEO comes close with the Trent 7000 (a variant of the Trent 1000 used on the B787-10), which is in the 68,000 to 72,000 lbf thrust class. That's the advantage the 747-8 has. It uses a variant of the GE engines that are on the 787. 747-8 also has the advantage of having a freighter version which the A380 does not. Indeed, most 747-8 are freighters. 747-8 can also fit in a 747 size hangar, which means any hangar used to mod a classic 747 can handle a 747-8. The result is that several BBJ 747-8s have been sold, including two to USAF as Air Force One replacements. The 747-8 is also built on the same line as the classic 747, so the vast majority of the tooling has already been amortized, significantly reducing costs.

KenV

31st Oct 2018, 15:12

So have they finally ordered any engines for their "firm" A380s?No. That's the problem. There are no engines available that fit their requirements, and it appears increasingly likely there won't ever be. So they either convert the order to the classic A380 or cancel the order and buy a different aircraft. Since Airbus was not able to deliver the promised aircraft, cancelling the order will not entail any penalties. Emirates previously cancelled their order for A350 without penalty when that aircraft failed to meet their performance promises, so this is not something new for them.

DaveReidUK

31st Oct 2018, 15:19

747-8 can also fit in a 747 size hangar

If you're lucky, it will fit. The 747-8 is about 20 feet longer than its predecessors.

KenV

31st Oct 2018, 15:23

Where did you find this in publicly available information ? Or are you with EK / Airbus ?Tim Clark, head of Emirates said the following back in 2013. So five years ago Clark was optimistic GE and RR could and would do this engine improvement. Now five years later it appears he was wrong. GE won't make the investment and RR says they need a much bigger market to commit to that investment.

AW&ST: You would like Airbus to reengine the A380. How would that work? Clark: Engine technology is going through major changes. In the fullness of time, the A380 needs to get the benefit of what is going on with midsize fans. The Leap is going to give us 18% [better fuel burn], so they say. To leave the A380 in a position where it isn't [getting more efficient] doesn't make sense. What I've said to Airbus is the A380 is a good airplane today, makes money and is popular. And the alliance engines are, by and large, OK. But the new generation of widebodies is changing the game. A lot has changed since the A380 came to market. If they crossed over some of the stuff we're seeing on the new generation of jets onto the A380, it would be a very much-improved airplane. What time frame are you talking about? 2020?

Of course, we'd like to see it sooner. I don't think it would be difficult for propulsion manufacturers—Rolls-Royce (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=20257) and General Electric (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=31624)—to do a scale-down of what's going to come out of the new jets at the back of this decade. That cannot be lost on them. If you can do it with the A320 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=628&pgName=Airbus+A319%2fA320%2fA321) or [Boeing] 737, you can to it to the A380. It could be a smaller version of the [GE] 9X, or a smaller version of the [Rolls-Royce] Trent that was proposed, but there has to be a 10% reduction in [specific fuel consumption] straight away in the next generation.

LINK (http://aviationweek.com/awin/emirates-clark-discusses-777x-and-a380)

KenV

31st Oct 2018, 15:31

If you're lucky, it will fit. The 747-8 is about 20 feet longer than its predecessors.The biggest limitations are hangar door size (which limits wing span) and hangar height. With the raked wing tips off the 747-8 has the same span as classic 747 and the vertical tail is essentially identical. The 747-8 is only about 8 feet longer than the 777-300 and that additional fuselage length is (generally) not an issue.

Less Hair

31st Oct 2018, 16:05

The engine selection they need to do now will be for existing engines and for some current production A380 for early delivery from (IIRC) 2020.

DaveReidUK

31st Oct 2018, 17:10

The biggest limitations are hangar door size (which limits wing span) and hangar height. With the raked wing tips off the 747-8 has the same span as classic 747 and the vertical tail is essentially identical. The 747-8 is only about 8 feet longer than the 777-300 and that additional fuselage length is (generally) not an issue.

Thanks for that - I'd forgotten that the B773 won't necessarily fit in a Classic 747-sized hangar either.

tdracer

31st Oct 2018, 18:44

But there's no fundamental reason why an engine, or at least an engine family, can't be targeted at both big twins and 4-holers - the PW4000 and CF6 have done pretty well in both markets, for example, even arguably the GEnx.
The PW4000 and CF6-80C2 benefited from a happy coincidence - the requirements for the 767 and 747-400 were nearly identical (and by extension to the A300-600). The available thrust ranges for the 767 went from ~52k to 62k, while the base for the 747-400 was 56k (later increased to about 60k). As a result, the engines were quite literally identical - only the rating plugs need to change to swap between the 747 and the 767 (even the nacelle was common).
The GEnx is shared between the 787 and the 747-8, but the requirements were enough different that the engines are far from identical. Relative to the -1B on the 787, the GEnx-2B on the 747 has a ~7 inch smaller fan, the low compressor (booster in GE lingo) is completely different with one less stage, the LP turbine is completely different, and the gearbox is completely different (to accommodate an IDG instead of the two big starter/generators on the 787) . Only the HP core is common. GE spent a boatload (well into 9 figures) developing the -2B from the -1B.

Duchess_Driver

31st Oct 2018, 20:09

May be a silly question - but what sort of number of airframes would get an engine manufacturer to think about this kind of development?

DaveReidUK

31st Oct 2018, 20:42

May be a silly question - but what sort of number of airframes would get an engine manufacturer to think about this kind of development?

See post #70 et seq.

WHBM

31st Oct 2018, 21:05

The difficulty is that, apart of course from Emirates, the A380 purchasers have only bought the aircraft in relatively small numbers. If it's expanded, particularly in cabin size, those same carriers would be the principal market, and they wouldn't want to have two small subfleets that were not interchangeable on their routes. There does appear to be no secondhand market. Although British Airways, for example, might be interested, it would really only be maybe a dozen more as a top up, and then they would end up with two different fleets.

DaveReidUK

31st Oct 2018, 22:06

Although British Airways, for example, might be interested, it would really only be maybe a dozen more as a top up, and then they would end up with two different fleets.

That's not necessarily a problem for a sub-type with additional capability. BA has more than 50 777s, but only a dozen of those are -300ERs.

KenV

1st Nov 2018, 12:04

The GEnx is shared between the 787 and the 747-8, but the requirements were enough different that the engines are far from identical. Relative to the -1B on the 787, the GEnx-2B on the 747 has a ~7 inch smaller fan, the low compressor (booster in GE lingo) is completely different with one less stage, the LP turbine is completely different, and the gearbox is completely different (to accommodate an IDG instead of the two big starter/generators on the 787) . Only the HP core is common. GE spent a boatload (well into 9 figures) developing the -2B from the -1B.Indeed. And that was for a relatively "minor" installation change that did not involve the core. To obtain the improvements Emirates wants and Airbus promised would require far more changes and more importantly, very significant (and very very expensive) changes to the core. And significant risk. There is no certainty that applying the technologies developed for later engines would work on the Trent 900. GE, Pratt and Rolls have all been bitten when they tried to back fit new technology into older engines. Making such an investment and taking on such risk for 36 shipsets of engines is simply untenable.

Lord Bracken

1st Nov 2018, 16:24

No. That's the problem. There are no engines available that fit their requirements, and it appears increasingly likely there won't ever be. So they either convert the order to the classic A380 or cancel the order and buy a different aircraft. Since Airbus was not able to deliver the promised aircraft, cancelling the order will not entail any penalties. Emirates previously cancelled their order for A350 without penalty when that aircraft failed to meet their performance promises, so this is not something new for them.

Won't Mr Rolls sell you a Trent XWB -75 or -79 which fits the 75-80 rating with ease? You can even hang them on an A380, as Airbus have proven.

http://www.stephanebeilliard.com/site/storage/cache/images/000/228/A380-Airbus-X02-ExpNoF,large.1446286200.jpg

Kerosene Kraut

1st Nov 2018, 20:45

AFAIK they even designed some proper pylon not just a simplified prototype pylon for testing it.

SeenItAll

1st Nov 2018, 21:26

[QUOTE=Lord Bracken;10298996]Won't Mr Rolls sell you a Trent XWB -75 or -79 which fits the 75-80 rating with ease? You can even hang them on an A380, as Airbus have proven.
/QUOTE]

I believe the -75 and -79 were planned for the A350-800 -- a model that AB has dropped -- so these engines never went into mass production. Further, because these are down-rates of the -84 and -97 used on the A350-900 and A350-1000, respectively, it is likely that their performance suffers somewhat, and still may not reach the parameters that were originally promised to Emirates.

Kerosene Kraut

1st Nov 2018, 21:31

Those finishing touches on a contract are the customer's big moment to negotiate some even better deal. EK have done it with Airbus before and it seems they do it with the engine manufacturers again. But they are on the record to be committed to the A380. So it's a matter of time not whether it will happen or not. Still interesting.

tdracer

2nd Nov 2018, 01:12

Won't Mr Rolls sell you a Trent XWB -75 or -79 which fits the 75-80 rating with ease? You can even hang them on an A380, as Airbus have proven.

Problem is, that's not a certified configuration - and certifying a new engine installation is not trivial - far from in. First off, all aircraft performance must be redone and validated - many hours of expensive flight testing. Then the actual engine installation must be certified. Displays software will need to be updated. Aircraft handling will need to be re-evaluated, potentially including updates to the FBW software. Structural loads will need to redone and re-certified. Even ETOPS will need to be re-certified for a new engine (seriously). Probably somewhere in the $500 million to $1 Billion dollar range before it's all said and done to certify the re-engine - and that's assuming nothing on the engine needs to change (unlikely). Not to mention schedule - you're probably talking ~36 months from launch to initial deliveries - maybe longer.

KenV

2nd Nov 2018, 10:52

...Even ETOPS will need to be re-certified for a new engine (seriously)....Very true. For a twin. We're talking about the four engine A380. ;-)

On the other hand FAA defines ETOPS a bit differently and in their system the term can apply to three or even four engine aircraft operating on routes with greater than 180 minute diversion time. Sigh.

Kerosene Kraut

2nd Nov 2018, 11:00

They are now said to have picked RR finally.

KenV

2nd Nov 2018, 11:07

They are now said to have picked RR finally.An operator picking RR and RR developing and delivering a product to the operator's spec are two very different things.

Terry McCassey

2nd Nov 2018, 12:17

Jet engines usually get overhauled not replaced.
Icelanair once had a B757 that had a 535 on wing for in excess of 35,000 hours. Look after them and they will reward you.

WHBM

2nd Nov 2018, 13:30

They are now said to have picked RR finally.
Described here
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emirates-buy-rolls-royce-powered-a380s-says-sir-tim-clark/
along with some hard words for Airbus, and more particularly the "engine manufacturers". A bit general, but I wonder who he is obliquely having a shot at. I seriously wonder if the offer of the EA engine on the next A380s, after it seems to have ended production, was a sales team initiative that production wouldn't do, and Emirates wasted time and money looking at it.

Worst damning from him is for P&W, who of course are not on the Emirates fleet.

“I’m not saying GTF is a failure, it should work, I am not altogether sure why it hasn’t worked ..."

GrahamO

3rd Nov 2018, 09:24

An operator picking RR and RR developing and delivering a product to the operator's spec are two very different things.

Sir Tim saying the choice has been made and Emirates actually getting anyone to sign something are two different things.

He's just moaning that the manufacturers haven't invested billion just in case he gets around to buying a couple of engines.

Maybe he should look in the mirror and think about why people don't want to do business with Emirates, on Emirates terms, at any cost.

DaveReidUK

3rd Nov 2018, 13:20

Maybe he should look in the mirror and think about why people don't want to do business with Emirates, on Emirates terms, at any cost.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that Emirates, given its purchasing power, drives a hard bargain and indulges in brinkmanship.

Still, Airbus and Boeing seem to have managed to overcome their distaste, to the tune of 500+ aircraft.

Commander Taco

3rd Nov 2018, 19:49

His frustration as of late is almost palpable. He has bet the farm on the A380 and has surprisingly, rather than abandon this marginal beast, taken the “in for a penny in for a pound” approach.

STC also said: “Engine manufacturers were moving too quickly to try to meet specifications. When it came to innovation they did little and sat on their hands, they overpromised and what we see now is the result of that.”

I couldn’t agree with him more. The operational shortcomings experienced by the GenX, Trent, Leap and GTF are disgraceful, and in the case of those engines installed on ETOPS certified aircraft, the industry and traveling public have been most fortunate that there have been no dual engine failures or ditchings.

GrahamO

4th Nov 2018, 05:36

STC also said: “Engine manufacturers were moving too quickly to try to meet specifications. When it came to innovation they did little and sat on their hands, they overpromised and what we see now is the result of that.”

maybe in future, Emirates could restrict themselves to asking for what is achievable ? Companies don't go out on their own and offer the impossible but are forced into agreeing to the impossible by an unreasonable purchaser. At the end of it, its a mistake the supplier makes in agreeing to such terms, but the start of the process is a buyer who has ridiculous expectations.

If Emirates didn't ask for the unachievable, then they wouldn't have suppliers failing - and as to his suggestion that they sit on their hands, that's nonsense. Nobody invests for 36 aircraft.

Suppliers put money in where they get a decent return - and if you buy an engine supporting a tiny fleet, and there's an opportunity to invest on a new engine serving a fleet many times its size, its ridiculous for Emirates to think the supply chain would do anything else than invest in the bigger fleet size market. Unfortunately his comment is symptomatic of the best airline, a great (older) aircraft and an expectation of the having the biggest baseball bat on the field to beat up the supply chain like in the past, but realising there's nobody left on the field to play ball with as everyone has gone elsewhere to play.

Turbine D

4th Nov 2018, 12:43

Taco,
The operational shortcomings experienced by the GenX, Trent, Leap and GTF are disgraceful, and in the case of those engines installed on ETOPS certified aircraft, the industry and traveling public have been most fortunate that there have been no dual engine failures or ditchings.
Can you tell us about all the disgraceful shortcomings and your source of this information? Also, maybe you can explain why there haven't been any dual engine failures on ETOPS certified aircraft besides luck.

hans brinker

4th Nov 2018, 14:26

Taco,

Can you tell us about all the disgraceful shortcomings and your source of this information? Also, maybe you can explain why there haven't been any dual engine failures on ETOPS certified aircraft besides luck.

Just over a year ago I ferried a 320 NEO back to our maintenance base after it had experienced engine vibration. The maintenance crew that swapped the engine was on board with me. They told me that in the previous 18 months on four NEOs they had swapped 27 engines, so engines lasted around 3 MONTHS before parts needed to be replaced. Our 5th NEO was parked without engines due to lack of spare engines. There is plenty of evidence that they started hanging the engines on wings before they were fully baked.

glofish

4th Nov 2018, 14:45

Maybe he should look in the mirror and think about why people don't want to do business with Emirates, on Emirates terms, at any cost.
... and at the same time ask himself why only low qualified pilots apply and generate the shortage.
Oh, i forgot, he calls the shortage 'fake news' doesn't he, but my obscene roster tells the truth ...

STC gets even more trumpeske by the day:

"For Emirates itself, he said the biggest challenge currently is higher fuel prices. “At the moment we got huge problems with the fuel price, which is really destroying value for us, it really hit our bottom line quite hard, we haven’t had a good first half year just because of fuel.”

Same goes for the braggart who bought a Hummer to commute and then blames and lectures the manufacturer about his engineering, but never himself who could have settled for a nice Lexus.

Commander Taco

4th Nov 2018, 15:04

Can you tell us about all the disgraceful shortcomings and your source of this information? Also, maybe you can explain why there haven't been any dual engine failures on ETOPS certified aircraft besides luck.

Turbine D: Buy yourself a subscription to Flight International. Go back into their back issues archives for roughly four years and start reading up until present day. You'll see these engines have/had some very serious issues and yet when initially certified received 180 minutes "out of the box", as the jargon goes.

tdracer

4th Nov 2018, 19:16

Taco, why should we have to do the research to back up your accusations? I'd like to see you back up this statement in particular:
The operational shortcomings experienced by the GenX, Trent, Leap and GTF are disgraceful, and in the case of those engines installed on ETOPS certified aircraft, the industry and traveling public have been most fortunate that there have been no dual engine failures or ditchings.

I have considerable first hand experience with the GEnx - and your statement is demonstrably false. The GEnx had one of the smoothest EIS of any commercial engine ever. The IFSD rate out of the box was very, very good - much better than the minimum 180 minute ETOPS requirement - and while time on wing was a bit disappointing initially it's rapidly improved and is now doing quite well in that regard. In fact the really only meaningful issue with the GEnx was Ice Crystal Icing (ICI) - something that is still poorly understood (and not covered by the regulations). Further, although ICI caused some temporary thrust losses and engine damage, there were no shutdowns, and a fix was identified and certified. The Trent 1000 on the 787 has had it's issues, but they are mainly related to an unexpected wear out mode that didn't show up until the engine had been in service for years - out of the box the Trent 1000 was quite good. The LEAP has had a reasonably smooth EIS (getting/keeping production up to speed has been a problem but the engine itself has been reasonably trouble free). Only the GTF has had major issues (not exactly a surprise given it's totally new technology - there is a reason why Boeing decided to pass on the first iteration of the GTF).

WHBM

4th Nov 2018, 23:13

Only the GTF has had major issues (not exactly a surprise given it's totally new technology - there is a reason why Boeing decided to pass on the first iteration of the GTF).
I thought geared fans went back to the BAe146/RJ on airliners, as well as various military and bizjet types. And that it's not the new technology that has been the (multiple) issues anyway, but the more standard components.

RufusXS

5th Nov 2018, 00:08

I thought geared fans went back to the BAe146/RJ on airliners, as well as various military and bizjet types. And that it's not the new technology that has been the (multiple) issues anyway, but the more standard components.

You’re right, it’s not “totally new technology,” I think he just meant it’s new in the sense of the size of this application.

tdracer

5th Nov 2018, 02:42

You’re right, it’s not “totally new technology,” I think he just meant it’s new in the sense of the size of this application.

Exactly - there is a wee bit of difference in technology between a 7,000 lb. thrust class GTF and one producing about five times that much thrust. Boeing may have made the decision for the wrong reasons, but I doubt many people working the MAX think they made the wrong decision...

Turbine D

5th Nov 2018, 11:41

Original Posting by Commander Taco:
Turbine D: Buy yourself a subscription to Flight International. Go back into their back issues archives for roughly four years and start reading up until present day. You'll see these engines have/had some very serious issues and yet when initially certified received 180 minutes "out of the box", as the jargon goes.
I worked in the aircraft engine industry for 40 years, first developing processes for manufacturing engine components and then the last 26 years working for a major engine manufacturer. I'd be interested in your aircraft engine background and experience besides reading Flight International. I find it amusing, but sad, that the authors of many published magazine articles about aircraft engines, Flight International included, have problems distinguishing turbine blades from compressor blades from fan blades let alone identifying the correct cause of technical problems or the seriousness or not. If you want to obtain correct information before white-washing the entire industry, befriend someone who works in the aircraft engine industry.

Commander Taco

6th Nov 2018, 03:39

I have considerable first hand experience with the GEnx - and your statement is demonstrably false. The GEnx had one of the smoothest EIS of any commercial engine ever. The IFSD rate out of the box was very, very good - much better than the minimum 180 minute ETOPS requirement - and while time on wing was a bit disappointing initially it's rapidly improved and is now doing quite well in that regard. In fact the really only meaningful issue with the GEnx was Ice Crystal Icing (ICI) - something that is still poorly understood (and not covered by the regulations). Further, although ICI caused some temporary thrust losses and engine damage, there were no shutdowns, and a fix was identified and certified. The Trent 1000 on the 787 has had it's issues, but they are mainly related to an unexpected wear out mode that didn't show up until the engine had been in service for years - out of the box the Trent 1000 was quite good. The LEAP has had a reasonably smooth EIS (getting/keeping production up to speed has been a problem but the engine itself has been reasonably trouble free). Only the GTF has had major issues (not exactly a surprise given it's totally new technology - there is a reason why Boeing decided to pass on the first iteration of the GTF).

Thanks tdracer, you provided most of the evidence for my POV for me. You did miss one though - the GenX fan blade icing incident in January 2016 that resulted in loss of a fan blade, and worse, resulted in an engine seizure. Fortunately, the other engine was original spec and not a modified PIP2 engine. But I am given to understand the even this original engine had some damage to it. Feel free to correct me on that point if I’m in error. But at the end of the day, if this aircraft had been fitted with PIP2 engines on both sides, it would have been a hull loss.

Regulatory bodies have been in the business of certifying turbine engines for civilian use for what, approximately 58 years? It is not acceptable that the Trent and GenX were certified right away for 180 minutes given the unreliability demonstrated by these engines. I mean, one engine that wears out prematurely? After six decades of turbine engine design, construction and certification, excessive engine wear slips by and then is written off as a “whoopsies”? And the other engine that sneezes and coughs if you fly in ice crystals or can pack it in completely if the fan blades ice up?

Turbine D & tdracer: respectfully, you both must be engineers if you can so blithely dismiss these serious engine issues as “temporary thrust losses and engine damage”. What you both are elucidating is called “the normalization of deviance” when you suggest that dual thrust loss is somehow fine, especially so if it’s just temporary.

BTW, 41 years in the pointy end. My post-retirement job makes me privy to incident reports/technical bulletins, etc.

Taco

Turbine D

6th Nov 2018, 12:25

Original Post by Commander Taco
Turbine D & tdracer: respectfully, you both must be engineers if you can so blithely dismiss these serious engine issues as “temporary thrust losses and engine damage”. What you both are elucidating is called “the normalization of deviance” when you suggest that dual thrust loss is somehow fine, especially so if it’s just temporary.

BTW, 41 years in the pointy end. My post-retirement job makes me privy to incident reports/technical bulletins, etc.
I don't think either of us engineers ever suggested dual thrust loss is somehow fine. The only dual engine thrust loss that I recall happened on a Boeing 767 out of LA when the pilots on the pointy end accidentally shut off the fuel flow to the engines. It was a new aircraft to them at the time having transitioned from the Boeing 727. Luckily, the CF6-80 engines restarted quickly before the aircraft hit the sea.

There was one other incident I recall where ice crystals in the fuel caused a Boeing 777, operated by BA, to land short of the runway because of restrictive fuel flow to the engines when added power was demanded. The fuel/oil heat exchanger was modified to correct the problem on RR engines.

You paint a very dire picture of the engines that power jet aircraft. I would suggest to you that your career at the pointy end wouldn't have lasted 41 years with the picture you paint if it were true...

DaveReidUK

6th Nov 2018, 12:39

To be fair, the FAA AD issued in response to the JAL 787 event did say, rather chillingly:

"We are issuing this AD to prevent susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs, which could result in engine damage and a possible in-flight non-restartable power loss of one or both engines".

My understanding is that it was simply luck, and not by design, that the aircraft in question hadn't had both engines upgraded to the PIP2 standard, whereas some others in the fleet had.

Turbine D

6th Nov 2018, 12:45

Commander Taco,

This is from a 2016 thread on PPRuNe by the same title. So how do you test for something that isn't clearly understood and can't be reproduced like normal certification ice testing is done? Check the rest of the thread for more info...

This very serious generic type incident got buried by PPRuNe in the freighter forum

below is an excellent summary and a hope that it really can be addressed before it gets compounded into an accident.

I really don't see any of the big engines being totally immune from this until a level playing field design and cert standard is available

Boeing, GE Test Upgrades To Counter Engine Icing (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_08_23_2013_p0-609559.xml)

Quote:
The July 31 incident, which hit an AirBridge Cargo 747-8F enroute from Moscow to Hong Kong, is the latest encounter of a high flying aircraft with the poorly-understood phenomenon of core engine icing. In this situation engines can surge and suffer power ‘roll-backs’ strike with little or virtually no warning because ice crystal clouds do not show up on weather radar. The problem is unusual because it generally occurs at high altitudes where atmospheric moisture levels are normally very low, and because it impacts the high pressure core of turbofans which were previously thought to be virtually immune from significant icing.
The AirBridge Cargo 747-8F was in darkness at 41,000-ft over China, near Chengdu, when it deviated to avoid a thunderstorm. According to Russian federal air transport authority Rosaviatsia, the aircraft entered an unseen area of icecrystal cloud not shown on the weather radar. Air temperature rose by 20 deg C to minus 34 deg C for a period of 86 seconds, and the crew switched the engine ice protection system from automatic to manual for around 10 minutes.
Around 22 minutes after flying through the warmer sector the aircraft’s No.2 (inboard left) engine surged and automatically restarted. The No.1 engine then experienced a speed reduction of 70% of N1. After landing at Hong Kong inspections revealed damage to the high-pressure compressor blades of the No.1 and 2 engines as well as the No.4.
Boeing says the flight test effort is focused on “verifying operational elements” of a change to the engine control software. The testing included monitoring the development of ice crystals on the GEnx-2Bs powering RC021, one of the company’s test airframes that has recently been used to evaluate fuel system upgrades and other performance improvements. The fully-instrumented aircraft was originally designated for 747-8I launch customer Lufthansa, but was retained as a test asset after the German carrier opted not to take the modified airframe.
The software changes to the GEnx-2B full authority digital engine control unit are designed to help the engine itself detect the presence of ice crystals when the aircraft is flying through a convective weather system. If detected, the new algorithms will schedule variable bleed valves to open and eject ice crystals that may have built up in the area aft of the fan, or in the flowpath to the core. The modification to the GEnx control logic leverages similar changes made to improve the ability of the CF6 to operate in similar icing conditions.
The ABC event is the latest in a growing number of engine icing incidents which have triggered recent changes in international certification requirements. Unlike traditional engine icing, in which supercooled liquid droplets freeze on impact with exposed outer parts of the engine as the aircraft flies through clouds, engine core ice accretion involves a complex process in which ice particles stick to a warm metal surface. These act as a heat sink until the metal surface temperature drops below freezing, thereby forming a location for ice and water (mixed phase) accretion. The accumulated ice can either block flow into the core, or shed into the downstream compressor stages and combustor, causing a surge, roll-back or other malfunction.
Until relatively recently is has been assumed ice particles would bounce off structures and pass harmlessly through bypass ducts, or melt inside the engine. Now there is evidence that there is an environment where there is a combination of water, ice and airflow which is susceptible to accreting ice. Like many of the other known core icing events, the ABC 747-8 incident occurred near convective clouds.
When incidents were first reported, investigators initially assumed supercooled liquid water, hail or rain was responsible because it had been lifted to high altitudes by updrafts. Most events were recorded above 22,000-ft, which is considered the upper limit for clouds containing supercooled liquid water. However, pilots reported that even though they were in cloud at the time, there was no evidence of the usual indications of trouble, including significant icing on the airframe or any other remarkable aspect to the weather.

Less Hair

6th Nov 2018, 12:56

I think they changed something on the bypass doors back then plus maybe modified the engine software IIRC and it ended.

Commander Taco

6th Nov 2018, 16:29

I don't think either of us engineers ever suggested dual thrust loss is somehow fine

Uhh, except you kind of did....operative words in bold.

Further, although ICI caused some temporary thrust losses and engine damage, there were no shutdowns,

"Although" "Some" "Temporary".

Lots of hedging in that statement but hey, ok! There were no engine shutdowns, it's all good.

The only dual engine thrust loss that I recall happened on a Boeing 767 out of LA when the pilots on the pointy end accidentally shut off the fuel flow to the engines.

It was a Pratt JT9D powered B767-200 (not a particularly fine engine BTW. I operated this engine on both the B767 and B747 Classic) that suffered an engine surge right after takeoff. The crew followed the drill and went to select the EECs off. Unfortunately, the EEC switches were located down next to the fuel control cutoff switches, and they mistakenly switched the fuel control switches off instead of the EECs. Fortunately they quickly realized their error and the engines relit almost instantly. Part of the cause was attributed to poor ergonomics, IE: placing secondary engine control switches (EEC switches) next to primary engine control switches (fuel control switches). As you both probably know, the EEC switches were subsequently relocated to the overhead panel. The other three dual engine failures that come to mind (Air Canada, Air Mauritius and Air Transat) were caused by fuel starvation, not engine failure due to the issues we're seeing on the GenX and Trents. But again, you are rather making my point for me; when we can look at four dual thrust failures over a period of about 36 years and realize that not one of them was attributable to poor design/poorly understood phenomena/premature wear/etc, this new generation of large turbofan engines compares poorly to the first generation of P&W and GE engines.

So how do you test for something that isn't clearly understood and can't be reproduced like normal certification ice testing is done?

The answer is that you cannot certify until the problem is completely understood and associated risks mitigated. The JT9 and CF6 were well understood engines with perhaps hundreds of thousands of flight hours on them before they were hung on a big twin, the A300. And it was at least another 13 or 14 years until these engines fell under further scrutiny with the advent of ETOPS rules. While ice crystal icing is an elusive and a not well understood phenomena, the industry has been aware of it since approximately 2010. The solution is not an "Oh well, we've known about it for a while but don't understand it completely, but let's go ahead and certify anyway. We'll see what happens". Your collective attitude is reminiscent of the Challenger Disaster - IE: "We don't know enough about the behaviour of the O-rings in subzero weather but nothing has ever happened before so let's launch anyway". We all know how that turned out and the resulting investigation led Professor Diane Vaughan to say: "Social normalization of deviance means that people within the organization become so much accustomed to a deviant behavior that they don't consider it as deviant, despite the fact that they far exceed their own rules for the elementary safety"
If we can agree that the first generation large high-bypass turbofan engines were superb, then to me it is normalizing deviance to suggest that these new engines are really, really good too. Particularly when the evidence points the other way. At the peak, there were approximately 50 Trent 787s grounded, and on the other engine we had to learn the hard way, as a result of the ANA incident, that we have to do engine runups to shed ice just like in the propeller days. At least, post-incidents, the right thing was done and aircraft were grounded. Had this have been done after the American Airlines cargo door blowout in 1972, perhaps 346 people on a Turkish Airlines DC10 wouldn't have died two years later.

The real shame of it though, is that the industry has to keep relearning lessons already learned. Below is a short summary (not written by me) of an incident from author Ernest K. Gann's flying career as detailed in his book: "The High And The Mighty".
Another interesting story to prove this point also almost cost Ernie his life. He was flying a DC-4 after the war for an airline. Ernie considered the DC-4 a very safe and reliable aircraft.

After takeoff on a flight from San Francisco to Honolulu, as the aircraft ascended above 3,000 feet, all four big radials began acting up, with at least one of the engines quitting entirely. Had the crew not taken immediate action to adjust throttles, mixtures, and prop pitch, all four engines likely would have stopped turning.

The mystery of the reluctant engines was solved after they nursed the aircraft back to San Francisco. Prior to the flight, unknown to the flight crew, the spark plugs had been replaced with a “new and improved” version for this model of Pratt & Whitney engines. The new engine/spark plug combination had never been field tested, but the Pratt & Whitney engineers had assured their higher-ups that their slide rules confirmed the plugs would work. The plugs did not; at least not above 3,000 feet. Had Ernie viewed the engine log books or made some inquiries about the nature of the maintenance performed on the aircraft, he may have been in a better position to evaluate the real flight risk on the ramp rather than being forced to deal with it in-flight.

Turbine D

6th Nov 2018, 17:49

Commander Taco,
It was a Pratt JT9D powered B767-200 (not a particularly fine engine BTW.
I hate to tell you, but your operative words in your quote above weren't just hedgy, they just weren't true. I know because a co-worker of mine was on that aircraft and said the silence was eerie. The pilot who operated the switches did so without looking, the memory of his flying 727s and switch positions was etched in his mind. The CF6-80 had the quickest start time compared to the JT9s or RB211s, the RBs being the slowest. The Aircraft was within 300 feet of the ocean when the first CF6-80 started and began to generate enough power to begin a slow climb out. The pilots flew the aircraft on to Cincinnati, never explaining to the frightened passengers what happened.

Excerpt from the July 3,1987 New York Times
The latest Government order called for installing a guard between the two fuel levers to ''inhibit simultaneous activation'' of both devices.

It said that ''normal crew training emphasizes actuating only one engine-control switch at a time,'' adding, however, that the location of the devices on the Boeing 767 made it possible to operate switches for both engines simultaneously.

Planes like the Boeing 767 can readily maintain safe flight with only one engine operating.

The order imposed a 10-day deadline for making the change on all 77 of the Boeing 767's in use in the United States as well as on 30 domestic Boeing 757's using Rolls-Royce engines. The 767 involved in the incident Tuesday was powered by General Electric engines.

Airbubba

6th Nov 2018, 17:59

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1429x1082/baw269_85fae17b12d83b5913b6dd22c335c51c9c5b607e.jpg

Don't know if it's another A380 technical problem but BA269 is doing an air turnback to LHR right now after squawking 7700 going feet wet off the coast of Scotland.

RufusXS

6th Nov 2018, 18:24

Don't know if it's another A380 technical problem but BA269 is doing an air turnback to LHR right now after squawking 7700 going feet wet off the coast of Scotland.

A BA spokesman told Daily Star Online: "We’re sorry for the delay to our customers’ travel plans.

"The flight is returning to Heathrow due to a minor technical issue.

"Safety is always our very highest priority and our highly trained flight crew will always err on the side of caution."

I wonder what the spokesman's definition of "minor" is.

Sound Engineer

6th Nov 2018, 18:32

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

Airbubba

6th Nov 2018, 18:40

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

Well, another contribution to the A380 engine reliability discussion then.

And, to me, they appear to be holding off of Westcott (indeed near Aylesbury) at FL130, 180KIAS.

RufusXS

6th Nov 2018, 19:09

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

G-XLEE, Trent 900's.

golfyankeesierra

6th Nov 2018, 19:28

appear to be holding off of Westcott (indeed near Aylesbury) at FL130, 180KIAS
Odd, if they're dumping they're overweight. If they're overweight, 180 seems a little slow.. Probably not very reliable data (FR?)

autoflight

6th Nov 2018, 20:44

180k might not be too strange if the speed choice is related to their squawk code

Commander Taco

6th Nov 2018, 20:44

It was a Pratt JT9D powered B767-200 (not a particularly fine engine BTW. I hate to tell you, but your operative words in your quote above weren't just hedgy, they just weren't true. I know because a co-worker of mine was on that aircraft and said the silence was eerie. The pilot who operated the switches did so without looking, the memory of his flying 727s and switch positions was etched in his mind. The CF6-80 had the quickest start time compared to the JT9s or RB211s, the RBs being the slowest. The Aircraft was within 300 feet of the ocean when the first CF6-80 started and began to generate enough power to begin a slow climb out. The pilots flew the aircraft on to Cincinnati, never explaining to the frightened passengers what happened.

Wasn't trying to be hedgy, or even edgy for that matter, but thanks for the correction Turbine D. Looks like the one we're talking about was a Delta 767 with the CF6 engines as you state. My memory was of a UAL Pratt 767. Too many years, too many incidents/accidents to keep straight.

Airbubba

6th Nov 2018, 22:44

Odd, if they're dumping they're overweight. If they're overweight, 180 seems a little slow.. Probably not very reliable data (FR?)

I was thinking the same thing unless they were trying to burn rather than dump and had some flaps out in the hold. The 180 knots was indicated airspeed from the transmitted Mode S EHS data. They were in the hold for about 90 minutes from what I see. The groundspeeds seem to bounce between 260 and 170 as the plane goes around the hold at FL130.

I don't think either of us engineers ever suggested dual thrust loss is somehow fine. The only dual engine thrust loss that I recall happened on a Boeing 767 out of LA when the pilots on the pointy end accidentally shut off the fuel flow to the engines. It was a new aircraft to them at the time having transitioned from the Boeing 727. Luckily, the CF6-80 engines restarted quickly before the aircraft hit the sea.

I believe there have been a half-dozen cases of dual engine thrust lost on the 767 alone.

Air Canada certainly has the primacy claim with the world famous Gimli Glider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I know because a co-worker of mine was on that aircraft and said the silence was eerie. The pilot who operated the switches did so without looking, the memory of his flying 727s and switch positions was etched in his mind. The CF6-80 had the quickest start time compared to the JT9s or RB211s, the RBs being the slowest. The Aircraft was within 300 feet of the ocean when the first CF6-80 started and began to generate enough power to begin a slow climb out. The pilots flew the aircraft on to Cincinnati, never explaining to the frightened passengers what happened.

That Delta LAX-CVG flight was a classic screwup. With both engines shutdown in flight, the RAT deployed as advertised and buzzed merrily all the way to Cincinnati. The feds did an emergency revocation of the captain's ticket and went in person to retrieve it instead of sending a letter asking for its surrender. Apparently the crew contacted flight ops in ATL after the motors were restarted and the VP Flight Ops (was it Harry Alger?) said they were OK to continue. When the feds went ballistic, the company's attitude changed to that Animal House quote: 'you f***ed up, you trusted us!' Or, so the tale was told by some Deltoid friends at a brewpub years ago. ;)

tdracer

7th Nov 2018, 01:11

Turbine D & tdracer: respectfully, you both must be engineers if you can so blithely dismiss these serious engine issues as “temporary thrust losses and engine damage”. What you both are elucidating is called “the normalization of deviance” when you suggest that dual thrust loss is somehow fine, especially so if it’s just temporary.

Taco, I was going to write a length post to educate you on items that you are so clearly poorly informed about (ICI has been an issue since at least 1990 and it caused a dual engine shutdown on a CF6-80C2 powered 767 ~ten years ago - after ~100 million engine hours to name just two).
But then I re-read the above and realized I know your type, and I'd just be wasting my time.
Welcome to my ignore list...
:mad:

tdracer

7th Nov 2018, 01:18

OK, I'll bite one more time...
You're both right - there were two events on the 767 where the pilots shutdown both engines immediately after takeoff. One was JT9D-7R4, one was the CF6-80A. The first event was the JT9D (UAL sounds right but I'm not 100% positive) - one engine restarted, the other went into a non-recoverable stall. The pilot circled back around and landed right away on the one good engine. After that event the general feeling was that the pilot was an idiot for making such a silly mistake. Then the second event occurred, which was the CF6 out of LA which continued on to Cinci with the RAT merrily buzzing away.
That's when we realized we had a serious problem and the EEC switches were relocated to the overhead - with the infamous 'half a broomstick' interim fix.

Turbine D

7th Nov 2018, 13:51

Original Post by Commander Taco
Your collective attitude is reminiscent of the Challenger Disaster - IE: "We don't know enough about the behaviour of the O-rings in subzero weather but nothing has ever happened before so let's launch anyway". We all know how that turned out and the resulting investigation led Professor Diane Vaughan to say:
Quote:
"Social normalization of deviance means that people within the organization become so much accustomed to a deviant behavior that they don't consider it as deviant, despite the fact that they far exceed their own rules for the elementary safety"

Once again, if you really believe what you posted here, you wouldn't have had a 41 year flying career. One sentence out of Diane's book isn't even the whole story as to what happened and why. Your personal IE in quotes is wrong. Re-read the rest of the book, again. I can assure you that isn't the way things are in either the aircraft engine or major aircraft businesses. It seems to me you have an axe to grind for whatever reason in the industry you were a part of for years...

RufusXS

8th Nov 2018, 02:02

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

Any more on this? I haven’t seen much online other than “engine fault” reported.

beamender99

8th Nov 2018, 10:29

The UK papers find some details

"I'LL BA BACK
Arnold Schwarzenegger suffers mid-air scare on British Airways flight after an engine problemThe former Governor of California was said to be 'shaken' after the flight to Los Angeles was forced to turn back to Heathrow due to technical problems

Sound Engineer

9th Nov 2018, 16:50

Could be anything on a four engine engine jet.

Flying as cabin crew years ago I was on the flight deck of a 744 when the two first officers were discussing an engine shutdown due to an oil quantity warning... 4 hours from LHR, but routine enough that they weren't going to wake the captain from rest.

Any more on this? I haven’t seen much online other than “engine fault” reported.

Hussar 54

23rd Nov 2018, 19:24

In French I'm afraid....

Often rumoured, finally confirmed. Copious amounts of Gallic pride being spilled on TV news tonight as you might expect....

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/tourisme-transport/0600198467381-air-france-va-reduire-sa-flotte-dairbus-a380-2224287.php

It might have been the whole fleet but, as I always understood it, AF actually own five frames, so probably are keeping them for the simple reason they can't find a buyer for those.

Wizofoz

23rd Nov 2018, 19:39

c52

23rd Nov 2018, 19:57

AF reducing their fleet from 10 to 5.

Hussar 54

23rd Nov 2018, 20:02

Any chance of a summary for those pf us unversed in Le French?

Very briefly -

They currently have 10 frames five owned, five leasedf

Smith, just come in from Air Canada, has approved the previous plan to cut the fleet to five.

Two frames going back to lessor in 2019

Five frames ( presumably those owned ) to have $ 45 million refit $ 45 million per frame !!!!! starting 2020

Nothing about the other three frames.

Rest of the article is a Video and a generic put down of A380 and why it hasn't been a success, although 330+ frames sounds pretty good to me

And a few brief details of operational problems ' last summer ' so maybe 2017 or 2018

tdracer

23rd Nov 2018, 20:41

although 330+ frames sounds pretty good to me
Except that 'breakeven' is estimated to be between 500 and 600 units.
IIRC, the program was originally intended for a 250 unit breakeven, but that went out the window with various delays, cost overruns and redesigns, and uneconomic production rates.

Hussar 54

23rd Nov 2018, 21:01

Except that 'breakeven' is estimated to be between 500 and 600 units.
IIRC, the program was originally intended for a 250 unit breakeven, but that went out the window with various delays, cost overruns and redesigns, and uneconomic production rates.

I never really ' followed ' the history of the 380 - at the time iit was all a bit ' so what ' as far as I was concerned.

But interesting question might be - Who has lost the most $$ so far....Boeing with the 748 or Airbus with the A380 ?

The other thing for those on here who might know about these things - what is the ' real cost ' of manufacture ( ie, without the added on R&D costs ) of interior panels, seats, carpets, AVOD, etc if AF are talking $ 45million per frame for a refit. Easy to believe that the F&F suppliers are probably the most profitable companies in avaiation.....

tdracer

23rd Nov 2018, 23:58

Same question...seems high but on a per seat basis is it normal? Anybody here know?

The fancy First Class and Business Class seats are quite expensive - between $250k and $500k - each! Boeing final assembly started putting covers on them with a picture of new Lamborghini on the cover to help emphasize the value of what the machinists were handling...
I don't know what mix AF might be planning, but typically the A380 is being targeted at the higher end traveler so I'd expect the mix to be strongly biased to First and Business.
The Korean A380 I rode on a few years back had the entire upper deck Business Class - 94 fancy lie-flat seats. At $250k per seat that's over $20 million just on the upper deck...

Easy to believe that the F&F suppliers are probably the most profitable companies in avaiation.....
I don't know how profitable they are, but I do know that the certification costs for interior components is massive. Not only do they have to show compliance for all those regulations, but operators rarely buy 'off the shelf' - especially for the First and Business class stuff - they want their interiors to be unique.

Andy_S

13th Feb 2019, 12:01

Is the A380 facing the final curtain?

Airbus to give update on A380 shutdown plans (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airbus-a380/airbus-to-give-update-on-a380-shutdown-plans-sources-idUKKCN1Q125D?feedType=nl&feedName=ukdailyinvestor&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018%20Template:%20UK%20DAILY%20INVESTOR%20UPDA TE%202019-02-12&utm_term=NEW:%20UK%20Daily%20Investor%20Update)

tdracer

13th Feb 2019, 18:10

Is the A380 facing the final curtain?

More here:
Airbus Should Accept Reality And End The A380 Program | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airbus-should-accept-reality-and-end-a380-program?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190212_AW-05_426&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_6_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002544393&utm_campaign=18456&utm_medium=email&elq2=5cbd643e35704cdab5d0a78809f54d32)

left rudder

13th Feb 2019, 18:13

Leeham News reported today that A380 will be formally cancelled at press conference tomorrow

ironbutt57

13th Feb 2019, 22:58

so, do they still have to repay the launch aid?

cooperplace

14th Feb 2019, 05:08

according to the BBC, it's now official:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504

Production to end in 2021; a pity, it's a lovely plane for passengers, very quiet. But then, so is the A350.

Preemo

14th Feb 2019, 05:27

Sad day for PAX but they will keep flying for many years

dukiematic

14th Feb 2019, 05:56

according to the BBC, it's now official:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504

Production to end in 2021; a pity, it's a lovely plane for passengers, very quiet. But then, so is the A350.
Couldn't agree more. The 380 is magnificent but on a trip last month my first ride in a 350 was a revelation. If this is the standard then the proliferation of bland twins need not be all dull. I expect the 777X will similarly move the game on.

DaveReidUK

14th Feb 2019, 06:18

Sad day for PAX but they will keep flying for many years

And, arguably, a somewhat Pyrrhic victory for Emirates. Their strategy of playing hardball with RR and Airbus has left them with the world's largest fleet of orphans.

Rated De

14th Feb 2019, 08:36

And, arguably, a somewhat Pyrrhic victory for Emirates. Their strategy of playing hardball with RR and Airbus has left them with the world's largest fleet of orphans.

That is a pertinent point Dave.
That EK grew rather rapidly post GFC saw them replace, at least in the antipodes, alliances with 'greater fools' lots of additional capacity and ASK/RPK being the result.
That their operating metrics softened in the recent past is suggestive that perhaps scale is an issue. Additionally, one does wonder what attractions, other than fuel, catering and freight does the UAE offer?

The question is whether they have been caught wrong footed, adding that capacity precisely when fleet metrics and the market are not favouring their current order book.

His dudeness

14th Feb 2019, 09:22

a pity, it's a lovely plane

Being tossed about by its wake at FL400 I´m looking forward to the day these beasts are gone.

ATC Watcher

14th Feb 2019, 10:08

Being tossed about by its wake at FL400 I´m looking forward to the day these beasts are gone.
Shooting at an ambulance is not very nice , besides the fact that a 757 produces more vortex than a 380 , the beasts are likely to be still flying long after you retire...:E

Skyjob

14th Feb 2019, 10:26

Shooting at an ambulance is not very nice , besides the fact that a 757 produces more vortex than a 380 , the beasts are likely to be still flying long after you retire...:E
The wake depends on phase of flight.
I think His Dudeness referred to them in cruise flight, when A380 is the culprit of the two.
Whereas ATC Watcher, you likely refer to them on approach, where the B757 is the culprit of the two.
You are both correct.

flydive1

14th Feb 2019, 10:53

Being tossed about by its wake at FL400 I´m looking forward to the day these beasts are gone.

Well, you should climb to FL450 or even FL470 like I do, usually quite smooth over there ;-)

His dudeness

14th Feb 2019, 11:02

the beasts are likely to be still flying long after you retire...:E

Yeah yeah, remind me of my age. Thanks. :}

I think His Dudeness referred to them in cruise flight, when A380 is the culprit of the two.

We were thrown to about 60° Bank at FL400 at about 7nm / 1000 ft separation acc. to radar. We were lucky, neither the airframe nor pax were hurt. If someone would have without seat belt / standing, it could have been a different outcome.

Well, you should climb to FL450 or even FL470 like I do, usually quite smooth over there ;-)

If I did, you be moaning that I block the airways for ya. So I´m friendly and stay below 450 and whats your way of thanking me ?

bnt

14th Feb 2019, 11:05

I'm surprised at the talk of "failure". It didn't meet the target of 1,500 sales, but was that target ever realistic in the first place? There will still be over 300 A380s flying once production ceases, with all the maintenance that goes with it. I don't expect to see many A380s sitting in the Arizona desert when they'll still be very useful.

flydive1

14th Feb 2019, 11:07

If I did, you be moaning that I block the airways for ya. So I´m friendly and stay below 450 and whats your way of thanking me ?

I did not think of that, I really appreciate. Will buy you a beer when you catch up with me... ;)

Andy_S

14th Feb 2019, 11:32

I'm surprised at the talk of "failure".

It lost its manufacturer a lot of money. In commercial terms it was a failure.

WingNut60

14th Feb 2019, 11:37

No great future as a freighter in its old age, either.
Unless someone comes up with what is likely to be a really expensive make-over.

DaveReidUK

14th Feb 2019, 12:34

I don't expect to see many A380s sitting in the Arizona desert when they'll still be very useful.

Well maybe not in the desert:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/897x563/tarmac_airbus_a380_0bc005e1f6459c7b56646fb77b602b22dfda38ad. jpg

End of an era: Two Ex-Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 to be dismantled (https://airlinerwatch.com/end-of-an-era-two-ex-singapore-airlines-airbus-a380-to-be-dismantled/)

Webby737

14th Feb 2019, 12:38

No great future as a freighter in its old age, either.
Unless someone comes up with what is likely to be a really expensive make-over.

No don't think so either, probably just the weight of reinforcing the upper and lower deck floors would make it uneconomical and that's before you take into account the possible C of G problems as faced during the A320A321 conversion.

I can't say I'll miss them, whilst every pax I spoke to loves flying on them (I've never had the pleasure) they're a pain in the backside to work on, they're just too bloody big ! (I say the same for the B747!)

cooperplace

14th Feb 2019, 13:06

Couldn't agree more. The 380 is magnificent but on a trip last month my first ride in a 350 was a revelation. If this is the standard then the proliferation of bland twins need not be all dull. I expect the 777X will similarly move the game on.

well I hope the 777X is a big improvement on the 777, which is not my favorite plane, it's almost as noisy as the 747, IMO

Dog Star

14th Feb 2019, 14:04

fyi

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2186123/airbus-stop-making-struggling-a380-superjumbo-2021

Sailvi767

14th Feb 2019, 14:08

Shooting at an ambulance is not very nice , besides the fact that a 757 produces more vortex than a 380 , the beasts are likely to be still flying long after you retire...:E

The 757 produces more votex on approach than other aircraft in its size range but is still not remotely comparable to the A380 or for that matter the 747 and widebody twins.
””As a result, the industry set out to determine if the wake of the Boeing 757 is larger or more hazardous than that of other aircraft. The assessment of the Boeing 757 and the 767 was inconclusive. While the 757's wake decayed faster than that of the 767, its vortex velocity was approximately 50 percent higher—during one test. Because of this single unusual measurement, the FAA placed 757s in the wide-body category for separation rules, along with the larger 747s and 767s. At this time, the 757 is the only narrow-body with this restriction.
Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/is-the-boeing-757-a-threat-to-other-airliners-50733375/#0obSOLmXJ5JZ7PBe.99

That one test has never been duplicated despite repeated attempts.

DaveReidUK

14th Feb 2019, 14:22

Do try to keep up. :O

Dog Star

14th Feb 2019, 14:52

Thanks Dave, made me laugh. Maybe stating the obvious to some but Airbus only made their announcement today. Could easily be missed by the unaware such as myself :sad:

Nige321

14th Feb 2019, 15:38

Thanks Dave, made me laugh. Maybe stating the obvious to some but Airbus only made their announcement today. Could easily be missed by the unaware such as myself :sad:

I think what Dave means is there's already a big thread running... (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/614214-another-a380-woe.html)

dukiematic

14th Feb 2019, 16:54

Do try to keep up. :O
Brilliant.... just brilliant! 🤣

Mr Mac

14th Feb 2019, 17:12

Well the accountant's win again over the humble SLF. Not met many who do not like flying on them (and I do a lot of miles with EK ,so I am in them more often than many). As for 787 you can keep it, same for 777. Still have a soft spot for 747 - 400 and indeed the 8 who I am doing time on currently with LH. The other Boeings mentioned just leave me cold. I have done some hops on SQ 350 and they are ok but I will miss 380, though my career will probably close before their demise. I wonder in time if passengers will become nostalgic about them like they do about old flying boats ?

Regards
Mr Mac

Turbine D

14th Feb 2019, 17:28

As I understand it, the problem Emirates had involved the inability to come to terms with Rolls Royce for engines. Emirates then opted out of the contracted A380 buy and will replace part of the contract with Airbus narrow body aircraft. It is also likely that 23 of the remaining aircraft to be built will not be built as they were going to aircraft lessors. They will be difficult to place in the industry and will have no real value verses procured costs.

To make matters worse for Airbus, Etihad Airlines has cancelled 42 of the A350 aircraft they had on order, leaving a backlog at Airbus of only 20 aircraft. The problem is the aircraft Etihad received so far have not met the performance requirements. Shortage of engine parts and aircraft groundings added to the woe forcing the airline to lease other aircraft to maintain their schedules. Airbus states they will continue efforts to improve the A350 performance as time goes on...

DroneDog

14th Feb 2019, 17:53

I have similar thoughts to Mr Mac, I get to book my own flights and the aircraft type is a major factor, I love the A380. Sad news.

Chris2303

14th Feb 2019, 18:19

Sad day for PAX but they will keep flying for many years

Maybe not if the cost of fixing the wing cracks is too high

flight sim boy

14th Feb 2019, 19:54

armchairpilot94116

14th Feb 2019, 21:36

Done many flights on all the 747 variants except the dash 8 , love them. Have yet to fly on the 380, hope to do so before they all retire. Lucky since there is no real aftermarket for them seems they will be flown till they either become impossible to fill or fall apart. There’s no reason to break them up for parts for now anyway. At least for the ones owned by the airlines. The ones owned by lessors are all at risk.

The 380 set out to kill the 747 passenger version as a revenge to Boeing for all that profit the 747 made.. But they forgot that old saying about revenge.... first dig two graves....one for the victim and one for yourself. They didn’t realize the market had changed or rather it was too late by the time Boeing announced the 748 was a non starter.

there clearly was no room for two Jumbos in the sky. If there was no 380 the 747 may still be made as the 748 with enough orders for the cargo version to keep the passenger version alive.

Basically the King has killed the Queen and himself in this small kingdom of elephants of the skies.
they were both beautiful and magnificent elephants. Sad that it killed the 747 but I am glad the 380 existed. It is a glorious achievement even if it’s reign was flawed and short. It is an impressive beast that did not go unnoticed !,!

A salute all tthose who dreamed it and designed it and made it and flew it.

DaveReidUK

14th Feb 2019, 21:51

The 380 set out to kill the 747 passenger version as a revenge to Boeing for all that profit the 747 made..

Well that's certainly an interesting way of looking at it.

CargoOne

14th Feb 2019, 22:02

The 380 set out to kill the 747 passenger version as a revenge to Boeing for all that profit the 747 made.. But they forgot that old saying about revenge.... first dig two graves....one for the victim and one for yourself.

I do not recall seeing a good trustworthy analysis how much exactly profit was made on 747. If you ask my opinion, the main reasons why the profit was made 1) much less costly initial development and certification process compared to the current rules; 2) huge grandfathering of certification (cheap one see point 1) into next models; 3) success of -400. There is no way 747 can make money today for Boeing be it a fully new model. While -8 managed to grandfather quite some elements, it is not making money. Apart from -8, there was about 1400 produced but it was split over 5 different major variants and about 20 engine models - doesnt work today.

PAXboy

14th Feb 2019, 23:24

Airbus were always going to build their own 'Big One' to prove that they could do it. Their problem was timing - much of which is outside the control of any company. The 74 arrived at just the right time to be the success it was. But, for the 380? In no particular order:

Other technolgies made big twins unexpectedly more flexible and reliable
Proliferation of carriers, it is amazing how many people and companies want to start a new carrier, despite history showing the 'brimstone path'
World politics has changed
World politics is going to continue in this unstable mood for (I suggest) at least two decades
The Lo-Cost carriers have changed a great deal beyond just their own short haul shuttles
Public expectation of prices and service is fickle
The Interweb allows pax to check prices across multiple carriers from their own sofa. No longer the queue at the high street agent and a sense that, 'if you don't book it now it will go'. Because they can check from their sofa every day for a month before booking. No carrier is safe from that.
For Emirates, they started off with highly competitive fares to gain market and now want higher profits - which pax may not like.
The China carriers have been agressive in taking capacity and may not be subject to the same subsidy regulations as Europe
Development cycles cannot possible predict the rapid Boom and Bust economics of today
With modern news transmission, a single event in one country can cause thousands of families to change their booking plans overnight and getting them back takes years.

On the other hand, if there is more consolidation of carriers, there may be a better overall life for this remarkable machine
Whilst tele-conferencing is taking some business (I worked in telecommunications and IT for 27 years from before the start of video conf era) the need to go and meet the client on their own turf will never go away

I no longer travel on business but, for leisure actively seek out the 380 and avoid the 787 but I know that many pax like the 78. Likewise, the 777 is 'meh'. So I hope this ugly machine stays around and am sorry to see it fail. Super/Hyper sonic is no mainstream threat in the foreseable future.

tdracer

15th Feb 2019, 00:47

I do not recall seeing a good trustworthy analysis how much exactly profit was made on 747. If you ask my opinion, the main reasons why the profit was made 1) much less costly initial development and certification process compared to the current rules; 2) huge grandfathering of certification (cheap one see point 1) into next models; 3) success of -400. There is no way 747 can make money today for Boeing be it a fully new model. While -8 managed to grandfather quite some elements, it is not making money. Apart from -8, there was about 1400 produced but it was split over 5 different major variants and about 20 engine models - doesnt work today.

The 747 has been a reasonably profitable product for Boeing - particularly the 747-400 with nearly half of the over 1500 747's built being -400s. However it was never the huge cash cow that Airbus thought - during the 90's the wide body cash cow was the 767.
The rules of the game have changed dramatically over the 50 years of the 747. When the original 747 was developed, certification time and costs were a small fraction of today, and 'break-even' production numbers were small (when launched, the 747 break-even was projected to be ~100 units, and total production ~200 units). As a rule of thumb, 40 years ago you could figure half of the sales price represented what it actually cost to screw the aircraft together, and half went to repaying the development costs, overhead, and of course profit. Between the lower cert costs and higher markups that were charged, limited market aircraft like the 747SP could be developed and certified profitably - and the engine companies paid Boeing the costs of certifying new engine installations (and the economics of the engine sales would be worthy of it's own thread, but basically engine companies sell the engines at cost - the profits come from spares and maintenance).

In the 1980s things started changing - Airbus became a viable competitor while Lockheed dropped out, and the rapid expansion of air travel caused aircraft sales to soar. Instead of production runs of a couple hundred, a successful program meant over a thousand (or in the case of the 737/A320, thousands) - larger production runs meant costs could be spread out over many more units, which was fortunate because at the same time the regulatory burden skyrocketed - with a corresponding massive increase in the certification costs (which in turn made small production 'specialty' aircraft unprofitable). I became a DER in 1988 - the changes in cert between then and when I retired a couple years ago were simply mind boggling - worse most of the changes had minimal impact on safety (some have even had negative impacts on safety).
As for the 747-8, it was developed assuming a relatively small production run (the numbers were similar to the assumptions for the original 747). At the current six/year production rate, it's basically a break-even, but Boeing is still hopeful for an uptick in demand for the Freighter - if they can get the production up to 12/year they can actually make money on the deal. The 747 remains without significant competition as a freighter - if you want to carry more than 100 tons it's the only game in town - and the existing fleet is getting very long in the tooth (most non -8 747s still flying have over 100,000 hours).

cooperplace

15th Feb 2019, 05:17

Commander Taco,

a co-worker of mine was on that aircraft and said the silence was eerie. .

a friend, a member of the Galunggung Gliding Club, says I should never complain about aircraft noise.

Mk 1

15th Feb 2019, 06:00

Not quite the only game in town - as a new build you are correct - but there is also the An124 with a payload over 100 tonnes and the sole An225 with double that.

Andy_S

15th Feb 2019, 07:19

Not sure I follow - Etihad don't currently have any A350 in their fleet??

And given that they've just cancelled their A350 order, they're not going to have any in their fleet either........

DaveReidUK

15th Feb 2019, 07:41

First A350-1000 for Etihad (msn 290) at Toulouse a couple of weeks ago:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x260/a35k_290_d221b4ed34001bb290719f75500f36455fcc8892.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7845/46012375085_e3d4d87214_k.jpg

KelvinD

15th Feb 2019, 08:21

Andy S: And given that they've just cancelled their A350 order
Who told you that? Airbus thinks Etihad has 40 941 and 22 1041 still on the order book.

cattletruck

15th Feb 2019, 08:34

Production to end in 2021; a pity, it's a lovely plane for passengers, very quiet.

Such a shame. In the last number of years I have been deliberately selecting the A380 and paying a premium for the privilege in the name of comfort. Pity it's not profitable even under these circumstances.

I vividly recall during it's development that Boeing were saying Airbus got their market research all wrong. I guess they've been vindicated.

infrequentflyer789

15th Feb 2019, 09:53

I vividly recall during it's development that Boeing were saying Airbus got their market research all wrong. I guess they've been vindicated.

Not sure on that. Somewhere recently (maybe earlier on this thread) I've seen numbers that show the Airbus estimates were actually about the number they sold - problem is that they messed up the development/production so much that they needed to sell twice that number to get the money back.

Boeing then stuffed up 787 development/production too, but there was enough of a market there to recover it.

Both companies will have learned from the experience - notably Airbus took the A350 right back to the drawing board based on market research, and then seem to have developed and produced it very quietly and uneventfully, and it sells. 777X may well go the same way for Boeing - certainly seems much less eventful than the 787 so far.

Andy_S

15th Feb 2019, 10:09

Andy S:
Who told you that? Airbus thinks Etihad has 40 941 and 22 1041 still on the order book.

It was a tongue in cheek response Kelvin, not meant to be taken entirely seriously.

For the record, I understand that Etihad have reduced, rather than completely cancelled their A350 order.

But back to the A380.........

goeasy

15th Feb 2019, 10:18

Andy S:
Who told you that? Airbus thinks Etihad has 40 941 and 22 1041 still on the order book.

that’s not up to date.... Perhaps still being processed?

Bull at a Gate

15th Feb 2019, 10:55

I am another pax who prefers to fly on an A380. On what other aeroplane can I have a shower? (got upgraded once)

cooperplace

15th Feb 2019, 11:40

I am another pax who prefers to fly on an A380. On what other aeroplane can I have a shower? (got upgraded once)

ah yes, the $2m shower (give or take)

Webby737

15th Feb 2019, 12:09

Maybe not if the cost of fixing the wing cracks is too high
The fleet wide wing rib feet repair/modification was finished a couple of years ago, as far as I know there have been no problems with the post repair/modification.

glofish

15th Feb 2019, 12:14

I am another pax who prefers to fly on an A380. On what other aeroplane can I have a shower? (got upgraded once)
Putin's Tupolev has a shower

Chiefttp

15th Feb 2019, 12:22

Interesting discussion. History has a way of repeating itself. The A-380 story has many parallels to the DC-10/L-1011 development. Both Lockheed and Douglas had a limited market for a 3 engine wide body aircraft. Both manufacturers didn’t want its competitor to control the market so each built an aircraft that would insure a split market at best, and sales would never reach a profitable level. In the end the decision to build both aircraft led to the demise of Lockheed’s commercial division and was a huge financial burden to McD. I know Airbus believed there was a market for a super-jumbo, but as long as Boeing was still building the 747, most sales would be split, and profit margins shaved due to underbidding etc...couple this with the fact that the costs of building the 380 was quite expensive vice the 747, due to various reasons other posters have mentioned, and one has the recipe for financial and market failure.

Lord Bracken

15th Feb 2019, 13:38

72% of 777X orders are with the Gulf carriers, out of those the EY ones are a certain write off, so all not rosy in Mr Boeing's garden either.

SeenItAll

15th Feb 2019, 14:43

Not quite the only game in town - as a new build you are correct - but there is also the An124 with a payload over 100 tonnes and the sole An225 with double that.

While I am not an air freight expert, I think there is a significant difference between bulk carriers and containerized/palletized carriers. The Antonovs are bulk carriers -- one huge cargo bay that can carry outsized idiosyncratic freight. The 747s generally have two decks and carry containers or pallets. Unless, the Antonovs can be redesigned to segment their cargo bays into multiple decks, they won't be competitive in carrying standardized container/pallets.

His dudeness

15th Feb 2019, 15:48

The 74 arrived at just the right time to be the success it was

So 1973 (oil shock) and the next following years were great for aviation ?

There was just nothing that came close at the time and it took quite a time for the 340s/777s etc to arrive on the market.

The 380 is a niche product at huge costs IMHO and thats why it had a problem right from the start. And it is fugly. Nothing like the gracious lines of the 47, which still looks just right.

India Four Two

15th Feb 2019, 18:48

Most of the posts that declare a preference for traveling on the A380, seem to be from “Premium SLF” :)

My one and only sector on one was a SQ flight from London to Singapore, in the back of the bus. It was the most uncomfortable long-haul flight I have ever experienced. Both my wife and I made frequent trips to the lavatories, not because of a need, but just to be able to sit in a different position for a few minutes!

My only other encounter with an A380 was an hour in a simulator. That was a completely different experience. :ok:

Winemaker

15th Feb 2019, 19:34

I've seen numbers that show the Airbus estimates were actually about the number they sold

From the BBC:
Airbus' Global Market Forecast from the year 2000 predicted that 1,235 "very large aircraft" would be delivered to customers between 2000 and 2019

As of February 7, 2019 Airbus has 313 firm orders for the A380, so, no, not as predicted. Not by a long shot.

Winemaker

15th Feb 2019, 19:57

DaveReidUK

15th Feb 2019, 21:04

But not until after they'd tried to tell the airlines that what they wanted was a re-winged and re-engined A330, as I recall.

And then they listened to the market. Who knows, that might catch on. :O

tdracer

15th Feb 2019, 21:43

Poor phrasing on my part. There have been 313 firm orders for the A380 and 234 deliveries as of 07 February, 2019. I suppose one should subtract the cancelled Emirates order which was, I believe, 53 aircraft.

Appears the final built total for the A380 will be a bit over 250 units - word is they will build 17 more for Emirates before they shut it down (given the lead times for some components, I suspect some long lead bits for those 17 have already been started).

As for the Antonovs, SeenItAll beat me to it - they are not routinely used for scheduled freight service (and are not cost effective for such use). Rather the AN124 is basically a charter freighter - used to transport outsized items that simply don't fit in other freighter aircraft.

pr00ne

15th Feb 2019, 22:12

India Four Two,

To the contrary, I resolutely refuse to pay ten times the normal fare to travel business/1st, even if the client is paying, so pretty much always travel economy, and my choice of seat these past few years has been A380 each and every time. Not sure about SQ but the Gulf, European and Middle Eastern carriers that I have flown on are by far the most comfortable airliner seats that I have experienced. They are large enough to be comfortable even on the most rigorous lh routes.

keewee

16th Feb 2019, 00:04

Cant afford showers etc, but as SLF on QF1/2 etc, transiting or linking through SIN, I enjoy a quick open-air swim at the hotel then back on board the big beast refreshed.

Mk 1

16th Feb 2019, 01:33

Sorry to hear you had that experience I42. I flew from Sydney to Singapore in 2008 by 747-400, the return journey 4 days later was by A 380. Only cattle class - the A-380 was streets ahead of the 747-400 in terms of a spacious feeling and quietness. I quite preferred it.

daelight

16th Feb 2019, 02:41

wowzz

16th Feb 2019, 02:50

Chiefttp

16th Feb 2019, 03:10

Perhaps it the case that US carrier wouldn't touch European made super jumbo as they would 'lose face' or 'unpatriotic' ? Not sure the US market would save the A380, but the jealousy shown by US when EU show them up with superior aircraft for its type, is pretty obvious.

Daelight,
It wasn’t just US carriers who didn’t buy the A-380; it was most airlines throughout the world. The US market couldn’t support this aircraft. Ask yourself how many 747’s are flying between US Cities today? Airbus gambled when it built the A-380 and it turned out to be the wrong decision. Nice aircraft, bad economics.

ironbutt57

16th Feb 2019, 03:12

Dee Vee

16th Feb 2019, 03:24

Well, Mr Calder seems to think that BA will be busy buying up all the second hand A380s!
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/airbus-a380-british-airways-plane-aircraft-double-decker-heathrow-a8781691.html

Well, if they did, that would make me reconsider my previous decision never to fly BA again :)

megan

16th Feb 2019, 04:09

Most of the posts that declare a preference for traveling on the A380, seem to be from “Premium SLF”Well, here is one extremely satisfied steerage class pax who has done a number of Oz to Europe and return trips, my favourite aircraft of all time. My pet hate is the 777 and its terrible seats.

infrequentflyer789

16th Feb 2019, 07:51

As of February 7, 2019 Airbus has 313 firm orders for the A380, so, no, not as predicted. Not by a long shot.

Looks like I was referring to the break-even number not the total market estimate. Original break-even was apparently 270:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/20/a380_break_even/

Asturias56

16th Feb 2019, 09:07

Perhaps it the case that US carrier wouldn't touch European made super jumbo as they would 'lose face' or 'unpatriotic' ? Not sure the US market would save the A380, but the jealousy shown by US when EU show them up with superior aircraft for its type, is pretty obvious.

Don't think that's the case - more that the US Airlines Business model has changed and they prefer point - to -point and frequency on long haul - they switched to the 767 and then the 777 a long time ago

Wikipedia lists over 40 B-747-400 operators and only one (NW) is American

The twins give them a lot more flexibility and the economics are better if you can fill the front end

Pity tho' the A380 is by far the most comfortable and quietest aircraft from a SLC view - I always choose it over an A 330/340 or a B777 if there's a choice

Andy_S

16th Feb 2019, 09:29

....the jealousy shown by US when EU show them up with superior aircraft....

What on earth does the EU have to do this story?

And how exactly have the US been "shown up"? It's the A380 which is a commercial failure, while Boeing (who I assume you see as a proxy for the US) have arguably read the market better.

ironbutt57

16th Feb 2019, 09:32

On a brighter note, EADS chief financial officer Andreas Sperl told a gathering of analysts and investors that Airbus "still expected to sell more than 750 of its new planes over the life of the project". ®

Oh dear! But it's not the first airliner that failed to meet expectations...the biggest and most expensive to date though, and yes even in steerage it is more comfortable than the rest of the lot out there, although the reverse curvature of the fuselage sides downstairs was a bit strange at first

ironbutt57

16th Feb 2019, 09:36

What on earth does the EU have to do this story?

thankfully nothing, can you imagine an aircraft designed by a govt committee?

Webby737

16th Feb 2019, 10:59

What on earth does the EU have to do this story?

thankfully nothing, can you imagine an aircraft designed by a govt committee?
Overweight, over budget, under performing and late :)

ironbutt57

16th Feb 2019, 12:33

Overweight, over budget, under performing and late :)

hmmmmmm...well....maybe...

CONSO

16th Feb 2019, 14:31

What on earth does the EU have to do this story?

thankfully nothing, can you imagine an aircraft designed by a govt committee?

Try a bit of history as to birth of airbust

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htmEuropean Communities and Certain member States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft
Of course the term large civil aircraft ( LCA) was poorly defined - seems it MAY have excluded only the Sopwith camel, Travelair and perhaps the Piper cub and Wright flyer . . .

vikingivesterled

16th Feb 2019, 14:58

Not quite the only game in town - as a new build you are correct - but there is also the An124 with a payload over 100 tonnes and the sole An225 with double that.

Did Airbus miss a trick by not having the A380 cockpit up top and therebye forsaking the possiblility of having a freighter version with an opening nose. They can't really have been taking in the 747's longer framelife and increased resale value as a cargo carrier, and the extended livespans of the high payload older russian cargo planes with this feature. Maybe they got hung up in the topbulging wingcarrying Guppy/Beluga and forgot the advantage of loading most cargo direct from the ground.

tdracer

16th Feb 2019, 19:18

Wikipedia lists over 40 B-747-400 operators and only one (NW) is American
When the A380 was launched, there were two US operators of the 747 in passenger guise - Northwest and United (Northwest was the 747-400 launch customer). However neither had taken a new one for years nor had any more on order - they were already looking at the transition to big twins.
Both United and Delta (which merged with NW several years back) have completely phased out the 747 by the end of 2017. It's rather telling that not only were they replaced by big twins - in many cases they weren't even particularly big 'big twins' - many of those routes now being flown by 767, 777-200, and A330s.

5711N0205W

16th Feb 2019, 20:57

As a pax love the 380, hate the triple, Airbus all the way when I have the choice...

flash8

16th Feb 2019, 21:01

Chiefttp

16th Feb 2019, 21:55

Perhaps some folks don’t remember but both FedEx and UPS ordered A-380 cargo freighters. However it became apparent that a cargo variant of the 380 was not going to be developed in the hoped for timeframe, and both companies cancelled their orders. Apparently the cost to design a pure freighter version of the 380, coupled with the additional weight needed to reinforce both decks for freight was cost prohibitive.

The Ancient Geek

16th Feb 2019, 22:50

It takes a lot of traffic on a route to acheive the occupancy needed to make the A380 economic.
The last time I was on a BA 744 to JNB there were a lot of empty seats.

Goddamnslacker

17th Feb 2019, 05:56

Why cant people accept the A380 is a legacy fleet aircraft, its time has come and gone...the A350/B787/B77X are all the replacements...gone are the days of a so call "Hub Buster", it takes to long to turn around, its too big, overweight, slow and not fuel efficient...airlines that have them, will be stuck with them..unless they can trade them in for fuel efficient twins. If it was so fantastic a heap of American/European Airlines would use it as a "Bus Service", but they dont...as for passengers love it, most passengers don;t know what aircraft they are traveling on & really don't care, it the price of the ticket that attracts them!

DaveReidUK

17th Feb 2019, 08:18

Why cant people accept the A380 is a legacy fleet aircraft, its time has come and gone...the A350/B787/B77X are all the replacements...gone are the days of a so call "Hub Buster"

We know what you mean, but isn't the term "hub buster" typically applied to those latter types, not the A380?

FlightGlobal: Qantas eyes 777 as "hub buster" (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/qantas-eyes-777-as-hub-buster-200255/)

Andy_S

17th Feb 2019, 09:54

...as for passengers love it, most passengers don;t know what aircraft they are traveling on & really don't care....

That's my opinion as well. You've got to bear in mind that PPRuNe contributors have an interest in aviation, so it's perhaps no surprise that people here are well informed and opinionated about aircraft types. On the whole, though, even where passengers have a choice as to who to fly with and when (many don't) I doubt the casual traveller really takes the time to research routes, schedules and airline fleets just so they can fly on an A380.

wiggy

17th Feb 2019, 10:04

So, what are BA going to replace all their ageing 744 fleet with?

787’s and A350’s - that decision was made a while back:

IAG - International Airlines Group - News Release (http://www.iairgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=240949&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1809203)

PAXboy

17th Feb 2019, 20:05

I had said: The 74 arrived at just the right time to be the success it was.
So 1973 (oil shock) and the next following years were great for aviation?
No but it was just about the ONLY shock for the 747 and in your next statement:

There was just nothing that came close at the time and it took quite a time for the 340s/777s etc to arrive on the market.
You help to prove my point that it arrived at the right time.

The 380 is a niche product at huge costs IMHO and thats why it had a problem right from the start. And it is fugly. Nothing like the gracious lines of the 47, which still looks just right.
Yes it is and the niche was too small but, as I said, Airbus were always going to build the big one and it might have succeeded. It is fugly but a friend of mine who works for a global travel company (a name you would all know) says that pax ask which rotations on a route are the 380.

But not enough in these changing times and the ultra long timescales of building aircraft. Bear in mind that countless other companies outside the airline world, have failed to adapt to the 21st Century. Mostly, their failures are small and do not make headlines - but they have also failed and lost money and put people out of work.

Kerosene Kraut

17th Feb 2019, 21:07

Recidivist

17th Feb 2019, 22:52

... You've got to bear in mind that PPRuNe contributors have an interest in aviation, so it's perhaps no surprise that people here are well informed and opinionated about aircraft types. On the whole, though, even where passengers have a choice as to who to fly with and when (many don't) I doubt the casual traveller really takes the time to research routes, schedules and airline fleets just so they can fly on an A380.
In our case, heading from east coast of Aus to Europe and back a couple of months later, I stipulated that it MUST be an A380. Same thing last time. Will be the same thing next time, as long as the A380 is an option.
Other posters are correct though, generally speaking the average passenger doesn't know or care what they are flying on, even when the price of the ticket isn't a factor.

tdracer

18th Feb 2019, 00:28

In our case, heading from east coast of Aus to Europe and back a couple of months later, I stipulated that it MUST be an A380. Same thing last time. Will be the same thing next time, as long as the A380 is an option.

Which is another of the A380's problems - it only serves a small number of airports. If you're not flying from and to one of those few airports, flying an A380 automatically means a transfer someplace - instantly adding several hours to your travel time and increasing the likelihood of some transfer related problem such as missing a connection or misplaced baggage compared to if a non-stop is available. In my case, A380's don't serve Seattle - a couple years ago I intentionally skipped a Seattle - Inchon non-stop and flew to LAX to take an A380 so that I could try it out (and yes it was quite nice and impressively quiet). But it increased my travel time by over six hours compared to a non-stop 777. I don't know many people that would do that just to fly an A380 (and I'm unlikely to do it again, although if I do need to make a transfer anyway I'd look at getting an A380).

As others have pointed out, until the mid 1990s, if you needed the range of a 747, you needed a 747 - there literally were no other options. But that hasn't been the case since before the A380 entered service - so unless you needed 500 seats, you didn't need an A380 - you could use a smaller, more economical twin engine aircraft.

tdracer

18th Feb 2019, 00:48

The 747 had to and could grow over several engine generations to become some success as the 747-200 (mostly used for range) and big success as the 747-400 (perfectly paired with the 767 back then).
The A380 was meant to become a family of aircraft. It's like the A319 member of the A320 family. Closing the program after only one version and generation now is a bit of a change of mind. Where is the stamina Boeing had with the 747?

Actually, size wise, the 747 didn't 'grow' meaningfully from the -100 through the -400 (the stretched upper deck on the -300/400 added some seat area (and the -400 winglets increased the wingspan a bit), but the overall aircraft dimensions didn't change much (except of course for the shorty 747SP). It wasn't until the 747-8 that the 747 was stretched with plugs both fore and aft of the wing. What did increase was the MTOW , which combined with more powerful and efficient engines provided large improvements in range and payload.

Unlike the A380, Boeing considered all the various 747 models to be profitable (although the -8 may not be - the jury is still out) so it made sense to keep reinvesting to make it better and keep it profitable. The A380 has never been profitable - and was only cash flow positive for a few years. Given it was already considered to be too big, spending billions to make it bigger was unlikely to meaningfully improve it's marketability enough to justify the investment.

Commander Taco

18th Feb 2019, 02:58

The A380 debacle was well described in this book: Airbus vs Boeing by John Newhouse, published in 2008.
It’s still an interesting read. The book describes a combination of hubris on the part of Airbus, faulty market analysis, and the mistaken assumption (as verified by td) that the B747 must somehow be a cash cow for Boeing as the 747 lacked a direct market competitor.

FlightlessParrot

18th Feb 2019, 04:04

SNIP
On the whole, though, even where passengers have a choice as to who to fly with and when (many don't) I doubt the casual traveller really takes the time to research routes, schedules and airline fleets just so they can fly on an A380.

Only an anecdote, but some friends of mine, not in the slightest bit airminded, chose an airline I don't particularly fancy so they could fly on the A380. Despite the contempt for passengers expressed by many professionals, once you fly for more than a couple of hours at a time, even the unwashed know whether they're comfortable or not.

Chiefttp

18th Feb 2019, 13:57

I would hope some enterprising writer is penning a detailed book about the A-380 development and demise. I for one would like to read it. I recently read a great book about the L-1011. It was a fascinating story.

SOPS

19th Feb 2019, 11:54

Ian W

19th Feb 2019, 12:37

So, what are BA going to replace all their ageing 744 fleet with? Wouldn't LH Gatwick with the 380 be a good business proposition? Thinking about slots as well...

In fact replace the 744's with 380's?

The 777X-9 has 415 seats so about the same as a 744, if there is a 777X-10 that would have 450 seats. Still not in the A380 range but not far off.
The advantage of the 777X is that as a twin it is cheaper to operate even disregarding the claimed fuel efficiency of the new engines. It will also carry a considerable amount of freight making it far more attractive as a business proposition than the A380

Chiefttp

20th Feb 2019, 01:38

Can I please ask what the name of the L 1011 book is.. I would love to read it?
SOPS ,
the book was called
“The End of an Era”
”My story of the L10-11”
by James West
I purchased a kindle version on Amazon.

Piper_Driver

7th Mar 2019, 20:11

It looks like there may be more issues ahead for the A380 program and Airbus. Some countries are now squawking about the un-repaid loans associated with the A380 development.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-loan-dispute/

bizflyer

8th Mar 2019, 12:14

Puzzled as to how (in this case) Germany - as a risk share partner - had recovered any of the loan if the entire production has run at an apparent loss, presumably servicing the loans forms part of the model. It would be interesting to see what the real P&L on the program looks like without white noise of wider accountancy, i.e. what has it really cost and what has it really lost (or made).

No further news from Dr Peters or Tarbes, have they started to break and realise value from the obsolete airframes? Perhaps with relatively small supply (as at today) the second hand parts market will be as interesting to watch as the second hand airframe market.

etudiant

8th Mar 2019, 20:00

tdracer

8th Mar 2019, 20:20

There was a good book written about the economics of commercial aircraft development: 'The Sporty Game' by John Newhouse https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/312480.The_Sporty_Game

Let me second that - excellent book - I still have a copy laying around the house somewhere that I read maybe 30 years ago.

Am I the only one confused by the WTO reaction to all this? Boeing's big complaint all along was that "launch aid" meant that Airbus didn't bear the full risk of making bad decisions in aircraft development. WTO sort of agreed (although in a weasel worded way). Then the A380 implodes, Airbus says the launch add doesn't need to be paid back - pretty much proving that the Boeing complaint was valid, and the WTO reaction is - the program is dead, no further action required.
:confused:

CONSO

8th Mar 2019, 20:37

Let me second that - excellent book - I still have a copy laying around the house somewhere that I read maybe 30 years ago.

Am I the only one confused by the WTO reaction to all this? Boeing's big complaint all along was that "launch aid" meant that Airbus didn't bear the full risk of making bad decisions in aircraft development. WTO sort of agreed (although in a weasel worded way). Then the A380 implodes, Airbus says the launch add doesn't need to be paid back - pretty much proving that the Boeing complaint was valid, and the WTO reaction is - the program is dead, no further action required.
:confused:

I know of a few who were not confused however. Goes back to prior to WTO- AKA GATT. And in 1999-2000-2001 without Boeing help - SPEEA was pushing for airbus to be ' taxed " via Countervailing Duties Petition on the subsidy issue . Pushed by a well known Boeing Engineer who was AT GATT and had very high level connections in wash DC and White House at the time. Matter of fact, a petition had been completed per the required form and information/data needed and was scheduled to be delivered in Wash DC the 2nd week in September 2001 - ... and the rest is history !

Countervailing Duty Petition Against Airbus Industries

Whereas, for the past year, the SPEEA Legislative and Public Affairs (L&PA) Committee has been conducting an intensive investigation into whether Airbus Industries is selling their commercial airplanes below fair market prices, due to the subsidies it receives from EU governments.
Whereas, SPEEA, acting on behalf of its members, does have legal standing to file a petition with the International Trade Administration (ITA) within the Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission (USITC) requesting relief under U.S. countervailing duty law.
Whereas, the L&PA Committee has gathered data from various sources, including: annual reports from Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) which includes Airbus; statistical surveys conducted by the European Aerospace Industry (EAI); Boeing and Airbus websites; numerous press accounts; and informal discussions with industry representatives.
Whereas, the L&PA Committee's evaluation has determined there is sufficient data to support our belief that Airbus is selling aircraft into the U.S. market at 10 to 25 percent below cost (not including special leases or other financial arrangements), with the resultant negative impact of lost jobs in the American commercial aerospace workforce.
Whereas, the L&PA Committee has completed a draft of the petition requesting relief under U.S. countervailing duty law.
Whereas, the L&PA Committee has completed a position paper which recommends filing the petition.

MOTION:
It is moved that: THE SPEEA COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THE EXECUTIVE BOARD FILE A PETITION WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INITIATE A COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATION AGAINST AIRBUS INDUSTRIES.

Note : The above motion was passed on Aug 9th, 2001 , <<<————

And yes I do have a complete file of the petition, data, and subsequent misinformation and unprincipled activities by various people . .

Kerosene Kraut

8th Mar 2019, 21:41

Tax breaks, subsidies, launch aids, research funding and parallel military or black programs are not unheard of for commercial airliner programs globally.

CONSO

8th Mar 2019, 21:52

Tax breaks, subsidies, launch aids, research funding and parallel military or black programs are not unheard of for commercial airliner programs globally.

True- but Boeing does not get forgiveable loans ... and in the 90's, productivity differences were significant re EU and US per AECMA stats

CONSO

8th Mar 2019, 22:12

And a bit of " told ya so " oops double post of same document

CONSO

8th Mar 2019, 22:22

But with limits as shown below-- page 99

Appendix 6: State Aid and Reimbursements
Under the terms of the bilateral agreement of 1992 between the U.S. and the European Union
concerning trade in large civil aircraft, the amounts of direct and indirect state support that either party can
provide to the development of a large transport aircraft are limited. Direct government support must not
exceed 33 per cent (33%) of the total development cost. Indirect support must not exceed three per cent
(3%) of the total annual revenues of the civil air transport manufacturing industry in a party’s domain. No
government support for production is permitted.
6.1: Direct Support
Development costs qualifying for direct support are defined under the Agreement to include:
· Preliminary design
· Engineering design
· Wind-tunnel, structural, system and laboratory tests
· Engineering simulations
· Equipment development work, except for work directly financed by equipment and engine
manufacturers
· Flight tests, including associated ground support, and analysis necessary to obtain certification
· Documentation required for certification
· The cost of manufacture of prototypes and test aircraft, including spares and such. Modifications
as may be necessary to obtain certification, less the estimated fair market value of flight aircraft
after refurbishment
· Jigs and tools, except machine tools, for use on specific programs
All direct support must be repaid. An amount equal to 25 per cent (25%) of the total development
cost (75% of direct support) must be recouped through royalty payments at an interest rate no less than the
cost of borrowing to the government; the remaining eight per cent (8%) (25% of direct support) with
royalties at that interest rate plus one per cent (cf. Exhibit 6-1). Both royalty streams must be repaid “within
no more than 17 years.”

from