A380plus winglets
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg back in April, Airbus announced various cabin modifications to increase the number of passenger seats on the A380. These included the NFS (New Forward Stairs Option) and the AGSM (Aft Galley Stair Module).
Between now and then, these concepts have failed to gain any traction with A380 operators with STC publicly rebuffing them for EK airframes. Whilst Airbus obviously felt this was a clever concept, their positivity has not been shared by A380 operators.
The whole idea of the A380 winglet seems to be an idea that was hurriedly conceived in time for the Paris Air Show, on the back of the lacklustre interest in the A380 cabin modifications program that was announced back in April.
I recall reading an article from the first day of the Paris Air Show, which has a quote from an Airbus spokesman that stated that the winglet modification was not available for retrofit and STC was quoted two days later talking about a retrofit option. A quick Google search will lead you to the relevant articles if you are interested. You would expect that your biggest A380 customer would at least be well briefed about the finer details of the A380 Plus program, before this concept proposal went public. This does not seem to be the case.
I fly the 777 but I have nothing against the A380, as I enjoy flying on it as a passenger and it goes to the places that I often want to fly to on staff travel which is great. However no matter how full your glass is, the harsh reality is that Airbus continues to witness a drought in new A380 orders and the end of the current order backlog moves slowly closer. As time passes, Airbus has to work harder to create and maintain interest in the A380, as the industry has evolved significantly since the A3XX was even thought of nearly 20 years ago now. There are no new quads in the pipeline from any of the airline jet manufacturers around the globe.
Perhaps the initiative of the A380 winglet is nothing more than a catalyst to keep the A380 in the headlines and to get people talking about the type and especially at the Paris Air Show. Airbus have claimed that the A380 Plus will have a new wing with minor modifications to wing camber and twist with a number of under the skin changes as well. This will all come at a cost and the seriousness of Airbus in delivering this new concept has to be questioned, when their highly tuned PR machine is not in sync with that of their biggest existing and future customer of the type.
Between now and then, these concepts have failed to gain any traction with A380 operators with STC publicly rebuffing them for EK airframes. Whilst Airbus obviously felt this was a clever concept, their positivity has not been shared by A380 operators.
The whole idea of the A380 winglet seems to be an idea that was hurriedly conceived in time for the Paris Air Show, on the back of the lacklustre interest in the A380 cabin modifications program that was announced back in April.
I recall reading an article from the first day of the Paris Air Show, which has a quote from an Airbus spokesman that stated that the winglet modification was not available for retrofit and STC was quoted two days later talking about a retrofit option. A quick Google search will lead you to the relevant articles if you are interested. You would expect that your biggest A380 customer would at least be well briefed about the finer details of the A380 Plus program, before this concept proposal went public. This does not seem to be the case.
I fly the 777 but I have nothing against the A380, as I enjoy flying on it as a passenger and it goes to the places that I often want to fly to on staff travel which is great. However no matter how full your glass is, the harsh reality is that Airbus continues to witness a drought in new A380 orders and the end of the current order backlog moves slowly closer. As time passes, Airbus has to work harder to create and maintain interest in the A380, as the industry has evolved significantly since the A3XX was even thought of nearly 20 years ago now. There are no new quads in the pipeline from any of the airline jet manufacturers around the globe.
Perhaps the initiative of the A380 winglet is nothing more than a catalyst to keep the A380 in the headlines and to get people talking about the type and especially at the Paris Air Show. Airbus have claimed that the A380 Plus will have a new wing with minor modifications to wing camber and twist with a number of under the skin changes as well. This will all come at a cost and the seriousness of Airbus in delivering this new concept has to be questioned, when their highly tuned PR machine is not in sync with that of their biggest existing and future customer of the type.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg back in April, Airbus announced various cabin modifications to increase the number of passenger seats on the A380. These included the NFS (New Forward Stairs Option) and the AGSM (Aft Galley Stair Module).
Between now and then, these concepts have failed to gain any traction with A380 operators with STC publicly rebuffing them for EK airframes. Whilst Airbus obviously felt this was a clever concept, their positivity has not been shared by A380 operators.
The whole idea of the A380 winglet seems to be an idea that was hurriedly conceived in time for the Paris Air Show, on the back of the lacklustre interest in the A380 cabin modifications program that was announced back in April.
I recall reading an article from the first day of the Paris Air Show, which has a quote from an Airbus spokesman that stated that the winglet modification was not available for retrofit and STC was quoted two days later talking about a retrofit option. A quick Google search will lead you to the relevant articles if you are interested. You would expect that your biggest A380 customer would at least be well briefed about the finer details of the A380 Plus program, before this concept proposal went public. This does not seem to be the case.
I fly the 777 but I have nothing against the A380, as I enjoy flying on it as a passenger and it goes to the places that I often want to fly to on staff travel which is great. However no matter how full your glass is, the harsh reality is that Airbus continues to witness a drought in new A380 orders and the end of the current order backlog moves slowly closer. As time passes, Airbus has to work harder to create and maintain interest in the A380, as the industry has evolved significantly since the A3XX was even thought of nearly 20 years ago now. There are no new quads in the pipeline from any of the airline jet manufacturers around the globe.
Perhaps the initiative of the A380 winglet is nothing more than a catalyst to keep the A380 in the headlines and to get people talking about the type and especially at the Paris Air Show. Airbus have claimed that the A380 Plus will have a new wing with minor modifications to wing camber and twist with a number of under the skin changes as well. This will all come at a cost and the seriousness of Airbus in delivering this new concept has to be questioned, when their highly tuned PR machine is not in sync with that of their biggest existing and future customer of the type.
Between now and then, these concepts have failed to gain any traction with A380 operators with STC publicly rebuffing them for EK airframes. Whilst Airbus obviously felt this was a clever concept, their positivity has not been shared by A380 operators.
The whole idea of the A380 winglet seems to be an idea that was hurriedly conceived in time for the Paris Air Show, on the back of the lacklustre interest in the A380 cabin modifications program that was announced back in April.
I recall reading an article from the first day of the Paris Air Show, which has a quote from an Airbus spokesman that stated that the winglet modification was not available for retrofit and STC was quoted two days later talking about a retrofit option. A quick Google search will lead you to the relevant articles if you are interested. You would expect that your biggest A380 customer would at least be well briefed about the finer details of the A380 Plus program, before this concept proposal went public. This does not seem to be the case.
I fly the 777 but I have nothing against the A380, as I enjoy flying on it as a passenger and it goes to the places that I often want to fly to on staff travel which is great. However no matter how full your glass is, the harsh reality is that Airbus continues to witness a drought in new A380 orders and the end of the current order backlog moves slowly closer. As time passes, Airbus has to work harder to create and maintain interest in the A380, as the industry has evolved significantly since the A3XX was even thought of nearly 20 years ago now. There are no new quads in the pipeline from any of the airline jet manufacturers around the globe.
Perhaps the initiative of the A380 winglet is nothing more than a catalyst to keep the A380 in the headlines and to get people talking about the type and especially at the Paris Air Show. Airbus have claimed that the A380 Plus will have a new wing with minor modifications to wing camber and twist with a number of under the skin changes as well. This will all come at a cost and the seriousness of Airbus in delivering this new concept has to be questioned, when their highly tuned PR machine is not in sync with that of their biggest existing and future customer of the type.
Safe flying to all,
J
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Jack
Every post? You sound like Baghdad Bob (M.S.S.) at his best:
"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."
Irrelevant, isn’t it? Pilots loved the Concorde and still ….
Most prefer to get to the destination they want, at a time they want. There are not many destinations to chose between the two aircraft. Thus irrelevant.
The space, layout and sound level are superior on the dugong, I have always admitted that. But I always added that you can thickly insulate, fit with bar and shower even a Tupolev. Only problem is, it will get heavier and less economic. If the company then still charges the same price, big deal, anyone will prefer the upgraded product. But it has to look green below the beancounter’s line and the boneyard north tells another story.
Big deal again! The statement is true for any commercial aircraft, isn’t it? It’s when you can no longer price to your liking (or need) or you can no longer completely fill an aircraft, when it shows its commercial capabilities. Airframe is a decision by managers, agreed, but I have since the beginning predicted that the dugong has its very weakness there, due to its layout with 4 donkeys and 4 trunks. It works on certain routes and does not on too many others. The boneyard tells a story again, face it!
Well, no. I rejected the opportunity to fly the dugong and don’t regret it. Furthermore a “light twin” is effectively a compliment, compared to a “overweight quad”. It is not so much the puerile “mine is better” argument, it is the “mine is better suited” one, if any! The boneyard and Darwin both tell a story.
As for the eternal argument saying that you should not care what can you fly, you’re paid the same. Well, for that matter no one should then raise any issue about the perverted sponsoring of the company, or the bloated HQ staff, or Emiratisation or AAR or anything else in conjunction with the absence of a pay rise or profit share. Because unsuited material chosen by management falls into the same category and is just as open to criticism. But funnily enough a lot of the dugong defenders are fervent critics of the above. It’s inconsistent. As long as I have a good look on the boneyard north, I will criticise the dugong and somewhat pity those who look away.
Honestly, every post regarding the A380 sees a onslaught of handbags at dawn from the haters.
"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."
I personally don't know any 380 driver who dislikes the aircraft.
I am told that most passengers and Boeing pilots prefer to travel on the A380.
The space, layout and sound level are superior on the dugong, I have always admitted that. But I always added that you can thickly insulate, fit with bar and shower even a Tupolev. Only problem is, it will get heavier and less economic. If the company then still charges the same price, big deal, anyone will prefer the upgraded product. But it has to look green below the beancounter’s line and the boneyard north tells another story.
I'm told that if Commercial can "fill" the aircraft then it's a good money maker over 7hrs (…) IF tickets are priced right and the 380 is filled then it's very profitable, blame commercial, not the aircraft for losses.
Summary, it is once again jealous Boeing pilots whose light twin attitude is brought here to try to give the "mine is better than yours" argument.
As for the eternal argument saying that you should not care what can you fly, you’re paid the same. Well, for that matter no one should then raise any issue about the perverted sponsoring of the company, or the bloated HQ staff, or Emiratisation or AAR or anything else in conjunction with the absence of a pay rise or profit share. Because unsuited material chosen by management falls into the same category and is just as open to criticism. But funnily enough a lot of the dugong defenders are fervent critics of the above. It’s inconsistent. As long as I have a good look on the boneyard north, I will criticise the dugong and somewhat pity those who look away.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lanzarote/Butuan/Southern Yorkshire
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Awwwww, someones tired....
Manchester to Far East via various points In between.
The choices?
A330, A350, A380, B777 and B787.
Business choice, B777 with one airline, A380 with another.
Economy, ONLY the A330, 2-4-2. B777 @3-4-3, B787 @3-3-3, at least the A380 and A350 have leg and arm room..
So for me A380.
Manchester to Far East via various points In between.
The choices?
A330, A350, A380, B777 and B787.
Business choice, B777 with one airline, A380 with another.
Economy, ONLY the A330, 2-4-2. B777 @3-4-3, B787 @3-3-3, at least the A380 and A350 have leg and arm room..
So for me A380.
The 80m box rule. Winglets back then would have meant reduced wingspan. Do try and keep up JAA.
What principles of aerodynamics have changed since the original design that full-size winglets only now make sense on the whale?
Not even being "Super" helps these days as they keep finding a market full of kryptonite.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jAA this is why the 77x will have folding wingtips. It will be Cat F for takeoff and landing, but Cat E once the wings are folded. This can cause some problems with enroute ATLNs if they have parallel taxyways etc. But once on the ground the same limits that apply to the 380 will not apply once the tips are folded. This is why there is only a limited number of contact gates for the 380 in DXB for example. And why the 380 has limitations on the parallel taxiway taxiing behind aircraft holding short of the runway when a Cat E aeroplane doesn't.
I mean the reason the new winglets work now and not before is that the wingspan needs to fit in the 80m box. The design now allows that. Before it did not.
The 80m rule is why the 77x will fold it's wingtips.
Separation in the air is based on weight. The 748 is a code F but does not need the same separation as a 380. Approach is dependant on stall speed. 380 is Cat C but a 773er is cat D.
The 80m rule is why the 77x will fold it's wingtips.
Separation in the air is based on weight. The 748 is a code F but does not need the same separation as a 380. Approach is dependant on stall speed. 380 is Cat C but a 773er is cat D.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HiflierEK
Can you post the hours flown of an aircraft (3 class) without Crew rest please.
3 Class, no CRC 380 for the last four and a half days was 62:33 and heading off to Asia just under three hours after I set the park brake back in DXB last night. That's a 13.9 hour per day utilisation...
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's flippin' hilarious that people continue to discuss the A380 as if it is a viable transportation device. Unless Tim Clark truly has the ability to suspend Newtonian physics (as he patently believes), the object lession is simple:
Have 430 passengers pay a price for a ticket and send them to London on a B777. Make money.
Have 430 passengers pay that same price for a ticket and send them to London on a A380. The problem is that these passengers are also travelling along with 100 tons of unnecessary, crack-ridden aluminium. Who pays for the dead weight?
Looking at the order book for this laughable piece of "engineering" it is easy to see that most airline executives still keep batteries in their calculatiors.
Have 430 passengers pay a price for a ticket and send them to London on a B777. Make money.
Have 430 passengers pay that same price for a ticket and send them to London on a A380. The problem is that these passengers are also travelling along with 100 tons of unnecessary, crack-ridden aluminium. Who pays for the dead weight?
Looking at the order book for this laughable piece of "engineering" it is easy to see that most airline executives still keep batteries in their calculatiors.
Last edited by Dropp the Pilot; 27th Jun 2017 at 11:42. Reason: editing
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropp,
You can argue semantics if you want, 430 Pax with 14 paying first class price, 76 paying Business and the rest paying economy, will earn more than 6/8 First, 42 Business, and the rest paying Economy fares.
So your argument falls flat there.
At the end of the day it's good on some routes and you have to ask questions on why it operates others. But even the venerable B777 isn't going to make a dime if it's near enough empty.
The bigger problem would appear to be we are not attracting enough passengers.
You can argue semantics if you want, 430 Pax with 14 paying first class price, 76 paying Business and the rest paying economy, will earn more than 6/8 First, 42 Business, and the rest paying Economy fares.
So your argument falls flat there.
At the end of the day it's good on some routes and you have to ask questions on why it operates others. But even the venerable B777 isn't going to make a dime if it's near enough empty.
The bigger problem would appear to be we are not attracting enough passengers.
Well it's 428 on a two class Boeing not 430. So that would be up against a 615 seat two class 380, burning an extra 3.6t per hour. So to an answer your question dropp it would need an extra 35 econ pax on board to pay for the extra weight. The other 150 can travel for free. It's 356 on the three class Boeing vs 517 on the 380 so only 126 traveling for free on that one.
/
/
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dusty West
Age: 53
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropp,
You can argue semantics if you want, 430 Pax with 14 paying first class price, 76 paying Business and the rest paying economy, will earn more than 6/8 First, 42 Business, and the rest paying Economy fares.
So your argument falls flat there.
At the end of the day it's good on some routes and you have to ask questions on why it operates others. But even the venerable B777 isn't going to make a dime if it's near enough empty.
The bigger problem would appear to be we are not attracting enough passengers.
You can argue semantics if you want, 430 Pax with 14 paying first class price, 76 paying Business and the rest paying economy, will earn more than 6/8 First, 42 Business, and the rest paying Economy fares.
So your argument falls flat there.
At the end of the day it's good on some routes and you have to ask questions on why it operates others. But even the venerable B777 isn't going to make a dime if it's near enough empty.
The bigger problem would appear to be we are not attracting enough passengers.
I also think Gardenshed has scratched the surface of the problems facing the airline, not only are they not attracting the numbers, its the other factors:
Inflexibility to substitute efficient equipment on routes with reduced passenger numbers.
Reduced yields do to competition, especially from those carriers who recognized the importance of the point above.
Instability in the ME, due to recent events in the GCC, Iraq, Syria, Iran just to name a few.
Inability in management to foresee and prepare for such eventualities, becoming top heavy and a corporate structure that does not allow inter-departmental communication. Mired in government policy which fosters a inefficient office work force.
An operational workforce that has little to no morale due to outdated methods of keeping a workforce productive, happy and efficient. Add to that, pay which has not kept up with inflation - a de-facto pay decrease year on year.
There are many more reasons but I think we all have the picture. The Chinese and Indians want a piece of the action as well so I think you will see increased efforts on their part.
Its sad when you can sum it up in one small sentence: Less ego, less SVP-XXX, more 787/350's, better staff morale.
