Airbus A380 Neo, anyone ?
 

Dear fellow PPRuners

I was wondering if Airbus ever considered a revamped, re-engined version of the A380, with newer, cleaner, and more efficient engines ?

These engines exist now, and I believe that the airframe is great IMHO, and maybe they could have led to a second life or even to a successful successor, before many airlines decided to retire their Legacy models

Waddayathink ?

My guess: they will have considered it and rejected the idea - which is why production is now winding down.

Their final offer was the "A380plus" without new engines, just with aerodynamic tweaks and cabin modifications. Nobody ordered.
At the same time both A350- and A330neo-engines were available. A350-engines were even flight tested using some A380 prototype. The world moved on to twins it seems.

Interesting recent interview with John Leahy, former head of sales for Airbus: https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...-a380-failure/

Essentially, the A380 was so late entering service (2007) it was only a few years before a major shift in engine efficiency (Trent 1000, Trent XWB, GEnx).

It’s about as likely as them announcing the A381neo-XWB, with six engines, three decks, four bars, a swimming pool and a velodrome... :rolleyes:

Even that very very remote possibility relies on Airbus not doing anything terminal to the assembly hall at Blagnac..The last airframe rolled out some time ago and I don't think Airbus are going to mothball the facility in perpetuity "just in case" the 380 rises from the ashes. There were plans for it to be re-kitted out for 321 production but that has been shelved...

https://www.ladepeche.fr/2019/08/06/...se,8349694.php


I think Fullwings has given the realistic answer..

Big twins are what makes airlines money. Much cheaper to operate per passenger mile than a triple or a quad.
ETOPS has led to the end of the four engined aircraft.
From a passenger point of view, a big shame.

The one A380 development that would have made sense (and for which the aircraft, with its humungous wing, was originally designed) was a stretch. It would also have transformed the SMCs, of course.

Unfortunately for Airbus, the sales momentum never got anywhere near the point where a stretch could be launched, and that in turn meant that there was little or no interest from the engine manufacturers in developing a suitable powerplant.

The key problem on the A380 demand side was that China did opt politically to create many small "babyflot" airlines instead of a few huge ones along mega hubs flying the biggest aircraft possible.

When it is suggested that you could re-engine an A380, what would you replace the RR Trent 900s with that would be significantly more efficient, and what would that cost per airframe? One of the factors that isn’t going to go away is the Dry Operating Weight of 280-300T, equivalent to ~2 777s or A350s.

I like the A380 as a passenger but compared to the competition, both internal and external, it’s heavy and inefficient. That’s not so important if you can cram it full of premium passengers on routes that aren’t that fought over but you’re not going to be able to win on price against twins...

In general you save cost per seat as the airplane used gets bigger. That's if it has the same engine generation as the smaller competing aircraft. The A380 hadn't. And it needed to be filled with paying passengers which is a trickier business the bigger an airplane gets.
Plus: Airlines prefered more flights per day on a given route instead of one single pair of A380 flights to better cater for higher yield business travellers. All together meant it didn't work out.