by "ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
Published 11/16/2017 at 16:26
by "ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
Published 11/16/2017 at 16:26
Tags: Planelopnik
STARS: 5
No, the world’s largest airliner isn’t getting any bigger. Airbus has just found a way to cram more seats onto it.
In a business that is driven by factors such as “cost per seat” and reductions in fuel burn, Airbus is pitching the A380plus to fleets who are already starting to sour on the A380, as wide-body twins become more economical. From an
Airbus media release
touting the A380Plus, we get this:
The optimised cabin layout based on the ‘cabin enablers’ presented at Aircraft Interiors Expo (AIX), allows up to 80 additional seats* with no compromise on comfort: redesigned stairs, a combined crew-rest compartment, sidewall stowage removal, a new 9-abreast seat configuration in premium economy and 11-abreast in economy .
Eleven-abreast in economy. Let that sink in for a second. That’s a 3-5-3 setup where you might get stuck in the middle seat with two of your closest strangers on either side of you for 14 hours. Just what does 80 additional seats mean?
497 passengers is the airline’s average capacity of the A380s currently in operation today – which are consistently attracting above-average passenger load factors. With all A380 cabin enablers, the A380 average seat count would move from 497 to 575 in four classes, and generate significantly more revenue for airlines.
They’ve also come up with something called “Premium Economy” for those of you who are fans of oxymorons. This is a 9-across arrangement, so there are two seat extra seat widths to share amongst your friends. IT’s up to the airlines to figure out how much more that room will cost. Other savings will be gained from the winglets shown in the photo, which are more than 15 feet tall. They are projected to offer a 4% savings in fuel burn. That doesn’t sound like much, but overall, it’s significant. And extended maintenance intervals will also offer savings to operators.
Interest in the A380plus has been tepid at best, particularly from Emirates, the world’s largest operator of the A380. And it’s also telling the Emirates recently placed an order for 40 787 Dreamliners to go along with the 150 777s it has on order, as they try to
strong-arm Airbus into keeping the A380 production line open for 10 more years
. The market for the super jumbo may just be starting to dry up, and it’s still entirely likely that the A380 will never turn a profit for Airbus.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
11/16/2017 at 16:37, STARS: 1
Airbus was simply too late to the 4-engine jumbo party. They’re a dying breed.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 16:39, STARS: 4
Yup. They were taking on the 747 when the 747 was already on the way out. But the A380 didn’t kill the 747, the 777 did. Markets are always fluctuating, but may in 15-20 years there will be renewed interest in the super jumbo. But right now, they just aren’t paying the bills.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/16/2017 at 16:39, STARS: 1
tl:dr - building a business case around what Emirates thinks the market needs is a bad idea
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 16:41, STARS: 2
Emirates has a lot of bargaining power with AB, because they’re the only ones buying A380s in any number. I’m no market analyst (more of a historian), but it’s interesting to read how the A380s are getting parked because nobody else wants to use them. And they’re no good for freight, either. It will be interesting to see where we are in 15 years, but for now, the 380 is a money pit.
"BaconSandwich is tasty." (baconsandwich)
11/16/2017 at 16:45, STARS: 0
What makes them unsuitable for freight?
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
11/16/2017 at 16:46, STARS: 3
The lowest class is Peasant. It’s stinky, but they know how to party back there.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/16/2017 at 16:48, STARS: 0
I’m not sure if Emirates pushed hard to make this happen, or if Airbus decided to build it, and Emirates (and Tim Clark) just got on board and tried to evangelize on its behalf to make it successful, but to me, the pontificating by Clark on the A380 was always condescending and dumb.
On top of that, I have first hand experience in business dealings in the UAE, and it’s very clear to me that they do *not* analyze business cases the same way Americans do, at all - they are more than happy to take a flier on grandiose projects with silly market assumptions, hoping for a miracle. It’s the hazard of having too much money laying around.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
11/16/2017 at 16:49, STARS: 0
Just figured out how many (or for that matter, how few) of these there are in the air. Wowzers you’re right.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 16:51, STARS: 3
Airbus considered a freight version, the A380F, but never followed through. Here is a good rundown on why it wouldn’t/didn’t work:
https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/
It’s also my understanding that international regulations would prohibit them from making a combi version with pax on the top and cargo on the bottom.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
11/16/2017 at 16:52, STARS: 0
Wikipedia states 2.31l / 100km per seat for its 787-9 seating 304 passengers.
For the Airbus A380 that’s 3.16l / 100km per seat on a 544 seat configuration.
So, if they got that number up to 575 and if I did my math correctly accounting for the advertised 4% improvement, they’d improve to 2.87l / 100km per seat. (that’s ( (544*3.16)/575 ) ) * .96)
Looking at this some more, it’s actually a 787-0 with 291 passengers that travels a route similar in length to the A380 (roughly 7000 nmi) and in that configuration it gets 3.08l / 100km.
A 777-300ER is actually listed as getting 3.11l / 100k on a 7,200nmi route.
Sooooo all this to say, they are actually all competing very closely on efficiency. Especially if the A380 goes up to 575 passengers and gets an actual 4% improvement.
But I could see how it’s not in favor, if you can get an airplane with half to 2/3 the size to be VERY similarly efficient. Isn’t that a no-brainer on all but the MOST congested routes? You gain so much flexibility, you don’t have a 575 passenger capacity locked to one route. You run a much lower risk of NOT filling a flight and I’m sure there are more.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
11/16/2017 at 16:52, STARS: 1
I will always cry at the thought that I became of “flying age” (for me, 23) after pretty much all of the passenger trijets have been retired. Unless I find the excuse (and the money) to fly far enough, the super jumbos will also be for the most part gone too.
But, people and airlines of spoken. Gone are the days of people wanting to get places fast on super huge planes, going small and slightly slower for less money is the game changer of right now.
"404 - User No Longer Available" (toni-cipriani)
11/16/2017 at 16:53, STARS: 1
You mean Scum class.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 16:54, STARS: 1
It’s the hazard of having too much money laying around.
Precisely. When you’ve got nothing to lose, you don’t have to worry too much about the particulars. My sense is that it was all done for show and prestige, and the numbers never came out in the black, but they did it anyway for the cachet. I would be interested to know if Qantas is making a profit with theirs.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 16:57, STARS: 0
The A340 took its first flight 26 years ago. That’s a lifetime in this business, particularly with the development of more efficient engines.
My son, who is also an avid planespotter, said that he saw a 4-engine airliner the other day and was wondering what it was. Well, I said, you’ve only got a few choices: 747, A340, KC-135, An 124, C-17, C-5, C-141. You can immediately rule out most of them. Turns out it was in fact a KC-135 that was based in Austin for hurricane relief.
"facw" (facw)
11/16/2017 at 17:07, STARS: 0
Compared to the 747-8F, no big loading door is an issue. Airbus originally planned one, but decided to put freighter plans on hold when it became clear there wasn’t much market. Also that second deck would be a bit of pain to load through traditional methods.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
11/16/2017 at 17:09, STARS: 2
Hindsight is 20/20, but the fact that the L1011 and the DC-10/MD-11 went extinct with no replacement should have been a sign that ETOPS was the way to go.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 17:10, STARS: 0
Good point.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/16/2017 at 17:11, STARS: 1
Emirates’ plan (as well as Etihad’s) was to make DXB (or AUH for Etihad) a giant hub airport, well beyond what ATL or ORD is today - figuring it was a great gateway centrally located between Europe, Asia, and Africa. Economic growth in the latter two continents was supposed to drive demand and fill those jumbos. DXB has grown, but I don’t think to the point that Clark and co. anticipated.
Basically, they were trying to overwhelm those markets with (cheap) capacity, and corner market share, blocking out competitors. Because throwing lots of $$ at the airline industry is a great idea (/s).
The REAL dumb ones are Airbus for playing along.
Qantas may or may not make money with the A380 - -but Airbus never will.
"Jcarr" (jcarr)
11/16/2017 at 17:11, STARS: 1
Think I’ll suggest Airbus bring me on as Chief Hindsight Officer.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 17:19, STARS: 0
With appropriate EU subsidy.
"facw" (facw)
11/16/2017 at 17:19, STARS: 0
Fine make Russia (and Cuba) sad...
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 17:20, STARS: 1
I had also read that one of the reasons Emirates wanted the 380 was to fly all the hordes of foreign workers into the region, particularly from the Philippines.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 17:22, STARS: 1
That’s one I had forgotten. Of course, the odds of seeing one in Austin are probably zero at best.
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
11/16/2017 at 17:22, STARS: 1
How long was it before the 747 became profitable?
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
11/16/2017 at 17:26, STARS: 3
There was a story where an operator said they could fly two aircraft tail to tail and carry the same number of passengers and have a lower seat/mile cost.
"WilliamsSW" (williamssw)
11/16/2017 at 17:27, STARS: 1
I suppose that may be the case, but those people don’t go back and forth on any regular basis.
When I was there, most of the people doing actual work there were from Muslim countries in Asia (Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.). But they generally went to the UAE, worked 2-3 years, then went back home. I doubt they went home more than 1-2x/year beyond that.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 17:31, STARS: 0
That I couldn’t tell you.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 17:32, STARS: 0
I would believe it. The one thing I have learned in the (admittedly limited) research I’ve done about the airline business is that it is very complicated. There are very smart people crunching numbers that I will never understand.
"BahamaTodd" (bahamatodd)
11/16/2017 at 17:42, STARS: 2
I read the same article. The only benefit to the A380 is airport congestion where there are only so many slots available to accept aircraft.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
11/16/2017 at 17:51, STARS: 0
Modeling. Did you ever become convinced of whose cookies were sweeter?
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/16/2017 at 18:02, STARS: 0
Yup. 4:1, not 2:1.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
11/16/2017 at 18:04, STARS: 1
Made us think...
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
11/16/2017 at 20:35, STARS: 1
Flight journal had an analysis 2008ish that the best configuration to make the a380 the most attractive would be the 600-650, but noted there were several major issues with that. One airports hate having that much of a surge and would test the limits of airport operations and that first class is often the most profitable as they’re charging 4 times for only twice the space. Third they questioned if international routes would need that amount of capacity, the a380 and 747 could carry. yes 600 passengers would be very cost effective, but getting 600 people is a pain in the ass.
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
11/16/2017 at 20:48, STARS: 1
That depends on the seperation of runways theoretically one a380 could take 2 slots of 757 and deliver 3 times the passengers, but it doesn’t always work out smoothly like that.
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
11/16/2017 at 22:15, STARS: 1
one of the major problems is that the scale of A380 only becomes an advantage when filled with 600 people. The number of routes that support that is low and made worse with dropping the hub and spoke model.
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
11/16/2017 at 22:29, STARS: 0
And get them all out in what, 90 seconds? Maybe with an explosive decompression at cruising altitude.
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
11/16/2017 at 22:38, STARS: 0
Early on Airbus even floated an 800+ passenger all coach version and a number of airports balked at the hassle of dealing with that many people.
As it is they use jetways to load/unload
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura)
11/16/2017 at 22:40, STARS: 0
The entire thing seems crazy to me.
"SpeedSix" (speedsix)
11/17/2017 at 02:52, STARS: 0
I don’t quite get why airlines call it ‘Premium Economy’, simply ‘Premium’ ought to do fine.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
11/17/2017 at 08:21, STARS: 1
Part of the problem for Emirates at least had been limited allotted landings at the major hubs. I think Heathrow only gave them something like 5 flights a day, so they were forced to carry more people with each flight. I believe some of that is relaxing, so now they likely don’t need to bigger aircraft. Smaller planes were always more economical to operate, but if you can only have 5 flights you need to carry as many people with each as possible.
"ateamfan42" (ateamfan42)
11/17/2017 at 09:54, STARS: 0
I don’t quite get why airlines call it ‘Premium Economy’, simply ‘Premium’ ought to do fine.
Because it is below Business class, which is below First. It is better than regular economy, but still not as premium as the expensive seats.
Domestic US ‘premium economy’ is kinda of a joke. Maybe slightly more legroom or something.
Now the upscale international airlines understand it, though. Premium Economy on Qantas is amazing. Big seats that partially recline, unlimited booze, food, movies, and music! It’s not a bad way to spend 16 hours in the air ;)
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
11/17/2017 at 14:33, STARS: 1
Its hub and spoke(B747&A380) vs long and skinny(A350&B787).
I live in a country that is very slowly changing from Hub and Spoke into long and skinny. Its better for the consumer.
I don’t know about the environment though...
"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
11/17/2017 at 22:18, STARS: 0
the weird shift in air travel is in the US and Europe its a move to a hub and spoke system to maximise full flights.
For international flights, the move has been in reverse. 50 years ago it was a handful of major airports would handle the international flights. With the 747 came along at a perfect time. The issue is that there are a load of long range medium sized aircraft that cost just as much per passenger, but are much easier to scheduale.
The main point is the a380 arrived to market 30 years too late.