And people mocked
Seems those "buy 4 get one free" sales promotions really do work.
Three days after warning the A380 might not have a future, Airbus says it will likely keep making the plane into the 2030s. The turnaround came after Dubai-based Emirates placed an order for 20 more of the behemoths, with options for another 16. The carrier already has 101 A380s in its fleet and had already ordered another 41 …
I'm sure they did screw Airbus for a bargain price - below cost most likely. But I doubt that Airbus mind. From their point of view, the main thing is to keep the A380 line open because the time will certainly come when other airlines order more of them.
What the A380 really needs is a modest stretch and an engine refresh. It was designed right from the start to be easily stretched (the wing is considerably bigger than it needs to be for this very reason) and there are some city pairs where a 1000-seater would be just the thing (not that they'd go that far, an extra 20% would be more likely). But it's a lot of money to spend for a model that wouldn't sell in volume in the current climate. Maybe in 5 years time - which, of course, is why it's good to keep the line open so as to keep that option open.
the time will certainly come when other airlines order more of them
That's what they said about Concorde. The A380 was a fair gamble (that the 747 was obsolete, and the A380 would take that market), but it lost. Big, expensive, inflexible four motor aircraft are not as attractive as they used to be. Even if China decided they needed loads of them, they'd either make their own, or insist on such extensive local content that the value to Airbus would be nil. But realistically, the big twin motors have won. AIrbus have skin in that game, the importance of this deal is purely and simply saving face for Airbus (and to a lesser extent, avoiding the write off of unamortised costs).
Wrong.
Concorde actually had a pretty substantial order book.
What hammered it was a) The protracted battle to get it into New York (all the BS about noise issued turned out to to BS, despite being designed for the noise requirements of the late 60's, when most airliners were turbojet, not turbofan) b) The price of oil multiplying by 4 overnight in 1973 c) US sour grapes over p**sing away $1Bn+ (in 1960s $) to build a really nice plywood mockup. d) It's range was a bit too short. It needed to reach Frankfurt to get the German market to the US as well.
As the delays getting into service lengthened the potential customers looked elsewhere. The upgrades planned for the 17th Concorde onward would have meant it no longer needed any afterburner (people forget Concorde was the first "supercruise" aircraft, although 40 years later I believed the Typhoon and F35 can do so as well)
John Smith 19 wrote:
As the delays getting into service lengthened the potential customers looked elsewhere. The upgrades planned for the 17th Concorde onward would have meant it no longer needed any afterburner (people forget Concorde was the first "supercruise" aircraft, although 40 years later I believed the Typhoon and F35 can do so as well)
<pedant mode><apologies> Technically speaking Concorde was not supercruise capable in the same way the F22, F35, Typhoon and (AFAIK) the English Electric Lightning are/were. All of those can achieve supersonic speed without supercruise, but need afterburner to achieve their top speed. Concorde was the opposite - it needed afterburner to go from <M1 to M1.8ish, and then switched them off to get up to M2 (the pressure recovery of the inlets was much better by that speed). So in that way Concorde is superior to F22, F35, Typhoon and Lightning, though of course it was heavily optimised to achieve just that. </pedant mode>
AFAIK one reason to want supercruise in a stealthy warplane is that the afterburner plume that you'd otherwise have is actually a very good radar reflector. All those lovely diamond shapes set into conductive plasma make good corner reflectors. I've read that this was first found on the Lockheed A12s, which were intended to be stealthy and indeed were, right up until they switched on their afterburners. For an aircraft designed to fly on full time afterburner this was presumably Not Good News. Apparently the first few A12s were built with RAM wedges in the leading edges, and then the SR71 didn't bother because it wasnt't the airframe that was the problem...
In a way I'm glad those upgrades to Concorde didn't make it into service. They may have produced a better aircraft, but it's undeniably sexier to roar into the sky trailing 4 fiery afterburner plumes accompanied by the kind of thunderous sound that makes even grown mean weep with joy.
Why can't people just be lowered in by crane, like in Thunderbirds? You could do them in batches of 20 say.
Or even have an automated airport. Have conveyor belt at the beginning, then a stunner like they have in abbatoirs. Then human cargo could just be shuffled conveniently round the airport stacked onto pallets. Though it would be better if everyone was stuck on individual boards - and whizzed round belts. No need of seats then, as you could just stack people in the planes. Security will be much quicker if you can just shuffle everyone through the perv-scanners at regular speed.
And as we're all zooming unconsciously round the airport on conveyors being touched up by security people, robbed by baggage people and perved at by the lot of them - the whole terminal could ring to the theme music from Thunderbirds.
You know it's the future. And it's not like there'd be a noticeable difference in the level of customer sevice...
"Or even have an automated airport. Have conveyor belt at the beginning, then a stunner like they have in abbatoirs. Then human cargo could just be shuffled conveniently round the airport stacked onto pallets. Though it would be better if everyone was stuck on individual boards - and whizzed round belts. "
Modern baggage handling systems already work like that. And a body isn't all that much bigger than a large suitcase, especially if stunned and folded in half.
"could you imagine 1,000 people all waiting for immigration, customs and reclaim?"
I've been in LAX (yr 2000) when 747s arrived from Auckland, Brisbane and Sydney (and maybe Melbourne, too, can't remember) at the same time. That's approx 1200 (or 1600) all waiting in line together.
and there are some city pairs where a 1000-seater would be just the thing
I know this is true, but aren't quite a few of these short haul routes? Is the A380 up to that many duty cycles - or would they have to produce a special toughened version like Boeing did with the 747? If so, how much does that cost?
Or has design now changed, so that long haul planes can do the same number of cycles as short haul? I wouldn't expect so, because if you've got stronger materials you can make the long haul version lighter, and so more fuel efficient. Which is going to be more important to most of your users.
'I know this is true, but aren't quite a few of these short haul routes? Is the A380 up to that many duty cycles - or would they have to produce a special toughened version like Boeing did with the 747? If so, how much does that cost?'
I'm guessing for a 1000 seater the sweet point for range/price is such that you can afford to go through duty cycles faster, it then depends on how close that is to the distance between the mooted city pairs. Although as you say I can't see that being much different to the Asian market 747s. Or maybe pick up some of the second hand Singapore Airlines examples cheap and use up their remaining fatigue life?
however routing didn't turn out that way,
I think the answer to this is: where didn't it turn out that way? An awful lot of transatlantic traffic is hub and spoke via London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, CDG, et al. And traffic in Asia is growing at a rate we Westerners don't really understand and over greater distances. This is why Emirates is happy to continue growing its fleet.
Plane list prices are always a bit of a joke, volumes are often so low that traditional "marginal pricing" doesn't make sense.
Emirates seems pretty happy with the A380 for many of its routes but it needs Airbus to keep making them. Airbus has cashflow and can afford to continue investing in the product line. Presumably meaning there will be a NEO version at some point. There are still lots of potential routes for this kind of plane and demand, particularly in Asia is growing.
Emirate must screw the hell of pricing out of Airbus.
I don't know - Emirates do love those planes (rightly so, they're the nicest places I've ever been on, and that's just in economy). Having the supplier say "if you don't buy more soon we're going to stop making them" probably pushes at least some of the pressure back to Emirates if it's clear they can't try and get the price down by waiting another 3 months.
And my reading of "this guarantees parts for another 10 years" is that without the deal parts might have started to become a problem.
The Dubai - Melbourne flight is a dream in an A380 compared to the A320 or 727(?). Didn't really notice a big difference on on/off boarding either. Since they needed modified gates, it's possible they effectively just open 2 gates at once.
"Emirate must screw the hell of pricing out of Airbus.".
I can hear your voice, but I wouldn't be too worried (and why should I) as it is also true that Airbus is also fully aware of what other choices the Emitate has and has not.
I am not concerned when business does business with business, both Airbus and the Emirate will shake hands with a smile for good reasons.
I am more concerned when hapless politicians to business with business and even more so when not so hapless politicians do business with business for their own good, sitting at the same time on both sides of the table, smiling.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/business/airbus-a380-emirates.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=Europe®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Flying back to Manchester from Dubai last year somebody had decided to park a Ryanair jet on the gate we were supposed to take, meaning a good 45 minute wait before it toddled off.
I'm assuming Manchester doesn't have the ability to take more than one A380 at a time? With Emirates doing three flights MAN-DXB a day already, I can only assume they will have to modify things at the airport if another carrier wants to start using them?
Totally agree. I'm not exactly a big-butt guy but the economy seats are bloody tight. The wing design seems to attract turbulance. All the most uncomfortable flights I've had were in bloody 777s. When flying into Dubai, it seems that only the A380 get proper gates - the rest, including 777s get a 20 min bus ride and a 20 min taxi to the runway.
Phil.
Boeing set the standard at 17inches in the 50's and want to leave it up to airlines. Airbus want to set a minimum of 18 inches.
Yes human body measurements have changed in the last 70 years and the average human back end is bigger than it used to be.
Regarding an earlier conversation about the hub and spoke model: An article I read (Forbes?) said some airlines are opting for more shorter and direct flights to save fuel - and the smaller aircraft needed.
It also pointed out that there are some used A380s on the market - and that not one has ever sold.
So if you have some spare change and you're dealing with a motivated seller - perfect add-on rec room.
Except countries like Dubai/UAE/Singapore can't operate a point-point model in Eu/USA.
The free market economies of the decadent capitalist west make sure their own airlines are protected - so Air Singapore can't operate Manchester to Newark or Barcelona-Berlin. They can only fly in-out of their own country, and nobody wants to fly from one 2nd city in Dubai to another.
> The free market economies of the decadent capitalist west make sure their own airlines are protected - so Air Singapore can't operate Manchester to Newark or Barcelona-Berlin.
That wouldn't be quite right.
In fact the matter is subject to agreements between parties in the framework of the Chicago Convention 1944. What you are describing is known as the fifth freedom of the air and it does take place. For example, you can fly Vienna to Barcelona on Air China a couple of times per week.
the curent model is the A380-800 and there was always plans for the -900 a stretched version
if they were working on getting a NEO out, but neither Engine alliance or RR would do it unless they got exclusivity as they wouldnt make enough of them to justify the development.
If turkish Airlines keeps growing, i can see them ordering A380s soon as they are roughly in the right place to operate an ME3 business model (hub/spoke)
If traffic through Heathrow keeps increasing, BA and others will have to go for the A380 as slots are limited and relocate internal flights to LGW or LTN
I have a friend who works in the Emirates Airlines accounts department. He says despite all the pomp and splendour and the media frenzy about their success, the books are in a terrible shape. There is no yield. They are barely keeping the thing going. Those big birds need a lot of bookings to make it viable. A 700 seater flight with 300 vacant seats (except may be during holiday seasons) does not work out financially. Moreover, the already ordered 380s are being delivered month after month but they have no nowhere to fly to. They clearly overestimated their demand. The new deliveries are being parked in Dubai Al Makhthoum International airport DWC (which is another airport constructed in the middle of nowhere in that emirate which has turned into a ghost town) with a plastic cover on the engines.
I am no expert in aviation but this is straight from the horse's mouth.
So these will replace older A380's? So does Airbus buy the old ones back? If so, will they be scrapped?
or parked in a US desert boneyard? or converted into freighters like many old airliners (but it's not good for that? - https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ ). Just what is the deal on this?
"or converted into freighters like many old airliners (but it's not good for that? - https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ )"
The reason there are no A380Fs is simply that they fell so far behind on delivery trying to fix the German/French cockup on passenger version wiring that all the freighter orders got cancelled.
Most freighters exceed MTOW before they hit volumetric capacity unless they're carrying "outsize" (ie, oddly shaped) cargo and just in case they don't, is the reason that airfreight is charged per kg AND there's a "minimum density" calculation for light-but-bulky cargo
As long as the maths workout in terms of cost per kg shifted, airfreighters will use them even if they things fly notionally "2/3 full"