Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Another A380 Woe?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Another A380 Woe?

Old 14th Feb 2019, 14:06
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by dukiematic View Post
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
cooperplace is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 15:04
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: wild blue yonder
Posts: 1
Airbus to cease A380 production year 2021

fyi

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/euro...uperjumbo-2021
Dog Star is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 15:08
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
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...
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-...LmXJ5JZ7PBe.99

That one test has never been duplicated despite repeated attempts.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 15:22
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,815
Do try to keep up.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 15:52
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: wild blue yonder
Posts: 1
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
Dog Star is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 16:38
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Dog Star View Post
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
I think what Dave means is there's already a big thread running...
Nige321 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 17:54
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Do try to keep up.
Brilliant.... just brilliant! 🤣
dukiematic is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 18:12
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 59
Posts: 685
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
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 18:28
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
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...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 18:53
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 86
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.
DroneDog is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 19:19
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by Preemo View Post
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
Chris2303 is online now  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 20:54
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Talking

Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
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...
Not sure I follow - Etihad don't currently have any A350 in their fleet??
flight sim boy is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 22:36
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 504
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.

Last edited by armchairpilot94116; 14th Feb 2019 at 23:00.
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 22:51
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,815
Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116 View Post
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.

DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 23:02
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,010
Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116 View Post
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.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2019, 00:24
  #176 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,916
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.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2019, 01:47
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by CargoOne View Post
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).
tdracer is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2019, 06:17
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
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.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2019, 07:00
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 171
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.
Mk 1 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2019, 08:19
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by flight sim boy View Post
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........
Andy_S is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.