Probable A380 Program Termination This Week - No last minute BA Order
#91
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,112
I do agree about the noise and dryness of the 777 - especially the noise!
I don't quite see how the A380 CW cabin is less cavernous or "dorm-like" than the 777 CW cabin. Are you all pining for your exclusive 747 upper deck cabin to be present on all fleets?
I don't quite see how the A380 CW cabin is less cavernous or "dorm-like" than the 777 CW cabin. Are you all pining for your exclusive 747 upper deck cabin to be present on all fleets?
#94
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,450
BA’s CW config doesn’t help, but the 777 isn’t great for the reasons noted above. Compare to the A330 and the Airbus is a far superior plane for a passenger. I don’t really feel that Boeing making pax friendly planes...see the 787 which suffers from the 777 defects, with the improved cabin altitude offset by the silly windows.
I do do wonder if the A380 might evolve a role in time (possibly on Asian trunk routes) and suddenly become in demand as the 717 has done.
I do do wonder if the A380 might evolve a role in time (possibly on Asian trunk routes) and suddenly become in demand as the 717 has done.
#95
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Actually higher cabin altitude due to lower differential pressure and lower cabin pressure (on the 777). Not that significant though, I think the 77W cruises with a cabin alt of around 8000ft, the A380 around 6000ft. The 747 is in fact the best at around 5400ft. None are that critically high. Below 10,000ft prolonged exposure doesn't cause any symptoms in most humans.
#96
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 552
I think the greatest design flaw of the 380 are the four engine instead of two. The A340 also has a short production period.
A 380-sized double decker plane with two engines should be technically feasible, the engines should only be slightly larger and more powerful as the 777W. But the frame is also larger.
#97
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Maybe when the engines are upgraded by more fuel efficient ones ?
I think the greatest design flaw of the 380 are the four engine instead of two. The A340 also has a short production period.
A 380-sized double decker plane with two engines should be technically feasible, the engines should only be slightly larger and more powerful as the 777W. But the frame is also larger.
I think the greatest design flaw of the 380 are the four engine instead of two. The A340 also has a short production period.
A 380-sized double decker plane with two engines should be technically feasible, the engines should only be slightly larger and more powerful as the 777W. But the frame is also larger.
#98
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,112
The A330 and A340 is not exactly comparable to the A380.
The A340 series does have four engines and it was not purchased much as initially anticipated by Airbus but they had a plan. They had the twin engine and four engine versions of the same basic design so they could offer either two or four engines depending on customer needs. When ETOPS became much more widely acceptable for long oceanic routes the four engines were largely superfluous but that wasn't a big problem for Airbus. The A330, with much of the same cabin, controls, and even a fairly similar wing design, could meet customer needs - and continues to be a successful aircraft with strong sales today (NEO version).
The A380 is unique in its category, there is no twinjet option that is equivalent. So the question here is not how many engines, but what size of aircraft - a very different question. The answer has turned out to be "medium size" rather than "extra large" for most operators.
The A380 design work only contributed to the A380. The A350 is an entire new design on its own. So the costs sunk into the A380 that can only be recouped by A380 sales is much higher than for A340 design costs which are largely being recouped by A330 sales today, no A340 sales required to recoup the cost.
The A340 series does have four engines and it was not purchased much as initially anticipated by Airbus but they had a plan. They had the twin engine and four engine versions of the same basic design so they could offer either two or four engines depending on customer needs. When ETOPS became much more widely acceptable for long oceanic routes the four engines were largely superfluous but that wasn't a big problem for Airbus. The A330, with much of the same cabin, controls, and even a fairly similar wing design, could meet customer needs - and continues to be a successful aircraft with strong sales today (NEO version).
The A380 is unique in its category, there is no twinjet option that is equivalent. So the question here is not how many engines, but what size of aircraft - a very different question. The answer has turned out to be "medium size" rather than "extra large" for most operators.
The A380 design work only contributed to the A380. The A350 is an entire new design on its own. So the costs sunk into the A380 that can only be recouped by A380 sales is much higher than for A340 design costs which are largely being recouped by A330 sales today, no A340 sales required to recoup the cost.
#99
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Japan/Thailand
Programs: AS, UA
Posts: 1,201
The A380 might have a secondary market for used aircraft (when sold at an appropriate price, for a fraction of the cost of a new one), but it is much more specialized and how easy/cheap they are to maintain in the long run is still unknown.
#100
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
SQ avoided cannibalising their mainline operations by having Scoot, Tiger and Silkair and getting them performing. By contrast CX have taken the same model and somehow managed to create their own competition with KA.
#101
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Amsterdam, Asia, UK
Programs: IHG RA (Spire), HH Diamond, MR Platinum, SQ Gold, KLM Gold, BAEC Gold
Posts: 5,072
4 Engine A380 is too costly since the new 2 Engine widebodies 777/787 came on the scene. Plus the noise+landing costs at say LHR, means 2x 787 landing is no more than 1x A380, A380 can not compete on either cost per passenger per mile or greater max flying range, unlike the B747 when it first came out.
Even 747 is on last legs, I think BA is biggest remaining 747 user ? Only possible because of use on premium earning UK-USA routes like LHR-JFK overcomes the higher cost per passenger mile
The things going for the lovely A380 (I will be so sad to see it go) I think of initially are the scenarios where
i)limited airport landing/takeoff slots (eg LHR), so larger capacity planes are needed
ii)fetching outlying passengers to airlines hub... The ME3 airlines plan, but again home location needs to be in middle of tons of routes
iii)passengers numbers per day work out as 1x Full A380, or 2x 70% loaded 777/787 , so financially cany load two flights/day so stick with A380, or cut capacity per day
Even 747 is on last legs, I think BA is biggest remaining 747 user ? Only possible because of use on premium earning UK-USA routes like LHR-JFK overcomes the higher cost per passenger mile
The things going for the lovely A380 (I will be so sad to see it go) I think of initially are the scenarios where
i)limited airport landing/takeoff slots (eg LHR), so larger capacity planes are needed
ii)fetching outlying passengers to airlines hub... The ME3 airlines plan, but again home location needs to be in middle of tons of routes
iii)passengers numbers per day work out as 1x Full A380, or 2x 70% loaded 777/787 , so financially cany load two flights/day so stick with A380, or cut capacity per day
#102
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: Some
Posts: 5,265
The other positive point I'd make about the A380 is that it has helped to keep F alive as a travel class! Every version of the A380 (apart from EK's somewhat rarer 2-class version) has F class because the economics of the plane allow it. When the A380's gone there'll be a lot less F left in the skies.
#103
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
I don't think it's feasible, because even though the same total output could be achieved, an engine failure would massively reduce available thrust, and cause very assymetric thrust. On the A380 an engine failure reduced thrust available by 25%, and even though two engines can ail, chances are it's not on the same side. I suppose it could be possible but technically very challenging. the 777 engines are massive, and would have to probably be another 30-40% more powerful to power an A380 at MTOW
Given the GE90 on the 77W is a technological marvel and the most powerful jet ever built, yet still 'only' manages 115,000lbs, we're some way off a twin engine A380.
Last edited by 1010101; Feb 14, 2019 at 7:08 am
#104
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: London
Programs: Mucci (Scirocco Sash), BAEC Gold, IHG Diamond Ambassador
Posts: 864
The only reason the 717 suddenly became 'in demand' is because Delta bought a whole lot of used ones, because they were cheap and not in demand. The 717 and MD-90 were not that popular at their list prices, but they have held up well over time and for the right price, will sell.
The A380 might have a secondary market for used aircraft (when sold at an appropriate price, for a fraction of the cost of a new one), but it is much more specialized and how easy/cheap they are to maintain in the long run is still unknown.
The A380 might have a secondary market for used aircraft (when sold at an appropriate price, for a fraction of the cost of a new one), but it is much more specialized and how easy/cheap they are to maintain in the long run is still unknown.
[Disclaimer, I know very little about the mechanics or economics of aircraft operation! ]
#105
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 552
The A380 on 3 engines can produce ~230,000 lbs of thrust. On 2 engines it's 150,000lbs and will still get airborne if the right conditions are met.
Given the GE90 on the 77W is a technological marvel and the most power jet ever built, yet still 'only' manages 115,000lbs, we're some way off a twin engine A380.
Given the GE90 on the 77W is a technological marvel and the most power jet ever built, yet still 'only' manages 115,000lbs, we're some way off a twin engine A380.
For comparison: a bus carrying say, 40 passengers still has one engine and not more, it is just larger than an automobile engine carrying 5 passengers.