747-800?

Boeing has designed 3 new aircraft – 747SR, 747-300D and 747-400D – basically for 2 airlines (JAL and ANA).

No, those were adaptations of the existing 747 airframe at the time.

You make it sound like each was a whole new aicraft. They weren’t. Essentialy, those three models were just modifications to the MTOW and Range.

Adapting an existing airframe for a single purpose (or in this case specification for a small number of customers) is far far cheaper than starting a clean sheet design.

Boeing has a history of pumping out unique models of existing products for customers. The 707 for example had several different fuselage lengths, some designed specifically for a very small number of airlines.

Ditto for the 737

Boeing has designed 3 new aircraft – 747SR, 747-300D and 747-400D – basically for 2 airlines (JAL and ANA).

Yes , however dont think that they would start a new program worth 10’s of billions of dollars for a niche market , that only has maybe 2-3 customers .

They might offer a varient if they can recover costs from low sales and keep customers happy like with the 787-3 but they are not going to go and design a completely new aircraft from scratch unless they can make a lot of money from selling it .

At least three – Corsair, ANA, JAL

U just said ANA does it for short haul . And JAL do they use high density 744’s for Across the pacific flights? Also isnt Corsair (Now TUIFLY? ) a charter airline?

So, what will be there in the large plane, low CASM sector?

A380-800, since 2007
B787-900, since 2010
B747-800, since 2010
A350-900, since 2014 or so
B777-300ER since 2004

Any future A380 stretches, if and when built
Any future 787 stretches if and when built
Any advanced 777 if and when built
Any advanced 747 if and when built

Y3 if and when built.

You forgot to mention the A350-1000 from 2016 and beyond , aswell as A350-800 from 2015 and beyond .

Did those ANA jumbo’s with 594 fly long haul routes ?

No, but Corsairs do.

Also these are one off instances

At least three – Corsair, ANA, JAL

, what a manufacterer has to look at is that what the majority of airlines will do . I believe that some charter airlines also stuff 9 abreast on A330’s but that doesnt make the 330 a genuine 9 abreast aircraft . During the fag end her life the airlines might stuff close to 500 PAX on the 777’s to maximise revenue from an old airliner however boeing cannot design a new aircraft on the premise .

Boeing has designed 3 new aircraft – 747SR, 747-300D and 747-400D – basically for 2 airlines (JAL and ANA).

That was what my guess was however they would most likely do a 777 sized cabin width but a bit larger to add more comfort , also more optimized . I think the 787 program as it matures will yeild valuable information about many unknown and known qualities of composites etc so boeing will study that and see what they can do .

Given the current market demand i doubt that they will seriously consider a Y3 launch before 2015 or so . A HGW varient of the 787 with a 20 % strech and a new wing should do the trick as far as competition for the 77W cycle is concerned , however the only way that the Y3 will be launched if airlines want a super effecient Twin VLA .

So, what will be there in the large plane, low CASM sector?

A380-800, since 2007
B787-900, since 2010
B747-800, since 2010
A350-900, since 2014 or so
B777-300ER since 2004

Any future A380 stretches, if and when built
Any future 787 stretches if and when built
Any advanced 777 if and when built
Any advanced 747 if and when built

Y3 if and when built.

ANA has stuffed 594, though, and Corsair stuffs 589. Do ANA and JAL have 777-s?

Quote:

Did those ANA jumbo’s with 594 fly long haul routes ? Also these are one off instances , what a manufacterer has to look at is that what the majority of airlines will do . I believe that some charter airlines also stuff 9 abreast on A330’s but that doesnt make the 330 a genuine 9 abreast aircraft . During the fag end her life the airlines might stuff close to 500 PAX on the 777’s to maximise revenue from an old airliner however boeing cannot design a new aircraft on the premise .

Checked Boeing airport planning manuals. 777 at 10 abreast has 17,0 inch seatbacks and 17,0 inch aisles. 787 at 9 abreast has 17,2 inch seatbacks and 18,5 inch aisles. So, you have to add 2 inches to seatbacks and 3 inches to aisles to get 10 abreast with the comfort of 9 abreast 787.

That was what my guess was however they would most likely do a 777 sized cabin width but a bit larger to add more comfort , also more optimized . I think the 787 program as it matures will yeild valuable information about many unknown and known qualities of composites etc so boeing will study that and see what they can do .

Given the current market demand i doubt that they will seriously consider a Y3 launch before 2015 or so . A HGW varient of the 787 with a 20 % strech and a new wing should do the trick as far as competition for the 77W cycle is concerned , however the only way that the Y3 will be launched if airlines want a super effecient Twin VLA .

That is practically not as imortant as it may look . No airline that i can think of (unless ryanair get serious with there long haul plans) is going to stuff 550 folks into a 777 .

And no airline has stuffed 660 or 624 seats into 747. ANA has stuffed 594, though, and Corsair stuffs 589. Do ANA and JAL have 777-s?

So if there is a Y3 it would most likely be made such a way that it could seat at 10Y @ the same comfort the 787 seats at 9Y .

Checked Boeing airport planning manuals. 777 at 10 abreast has 17,0 inch seatbacks and 17,0 inch aisles. 787 at 9 abreast has 17,2 inch seatbacks and 18,5 inch aisles. So, you have to add 2 inches to seatbacks and 3 inches to aisles to get 10 abreast with the comfort of 9 abreast 787.

For comparison, the maximum 1-class seating shown on Boeing airport planning manuals is 539 for 747 main deck and 550 for 777-300 single deck.

That is practically not as imortant as it may look . No airline that i can think of (unless ryanair get serious with there long haul plans) is going to stuff 550 folks into a 777 . Practically speaking the vast majority of 777 operators may never put 10Y seating on the 777 (while some very distinguished carriers may) . This is even more so with the A350 , only airlines that will put 10Y on A350 would be charter airlines ( i think A350 at 10Y would mean 16 inch seat) . So if there is a Y3 it would most likely be made such a way that it could seat at 10Y @ the same comfort the 787 seats at 9Y .

For comparison, the maximum 1-class seating shown on Boeing airport planning manuals is 539 for 747 main deck and 550 for 777-300 single deck.

You mean – compared to comfort of 9-abreast 777 or 10-abreast 777?

What i meant more precicely was that the Y3 (according to me) should be able to Passengers at the same comfort at 10Y as 787 does at 9y. Basically Same seat , pitch etc but with 10Y configuration . IIRC this comfiguration would require a wider then 777 cabin however i dont know how much given that composites allow for thinner side walls and maximise internal space . I think that the 777 is a tad bit cramped for wider acceptance as a 10Y aircraft. For mainstream airlines Air france and Ek use it but had it been wider it could have gained wider acceptance as 10Y aircraft.

how long should the stretch Y3 be with genuine 430…450 three class seats?

Thats a good question . Honestly i dont have an answer as i am not a structural engineer . But a lot of the people i have talked to that know this aspect (some are ex boeing designers) are not ready to rule out double deck or even 11 Y seating , however that might work. I think how long and how wider will be the million dollar questions that boeing has to answer moving into this category .

Genuine 10 abreast is that the seat and aisle width would be acceptable to a wider array of airlines not just charter airlines . Basically according the aircraft should be capable of seating 10 abreast at equal to or prefereable greater comfort then the 777 today.

You mean – compared to comfort of 9-abreast 777 or 10-abreast 777?

No count.

Does any airline seat 550 on the 77W?

Do not know, but Air France seats 472, including 422Y at 10 abreast. 36 of the remaining 50 are at 9 abreast, so only 14 out of 472 sit 7 abreast.

The boeing published information states something like 368 PAX in 3 class at 9 abreast economy .

Indeed. At http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_seating_charts.html

Observe that the 84 “Business” seats have 39 inch pitch.

The Y3’s lower limit should be aound that or a little less at 9Y IMHO ( remeber this is my opinion , neither I nor you know what boeing has in mind) but it should appeal much more as 10Y almost as much so as the 787 appeals to airlines at 9Y .

Which turns out somehow not to add all that much space. 747-400 with 10Y at
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_seating_charts.html

has 376 seats on main deck. And 747 has nosecone seating included.

But if the shrink Y3 at 350 three-class seats is still almost long as 777-300 or 747-400, how long should the stretch Y3 be with genuine 430…450 three class seats?

it should have wingelts.

If you are reffering to the 787 , then the 787-3 will have winglets –

The other 2 varients would have the raked wingtips .

it should have wingelts.

Spoiler’s gloom-and-doom: Let’s not forget that the 787 has yet to prove its technology in real world! Airbus has gambled with the 380 and lost (economically), but Boeing is also gambling with the 787 (technologically + economically), and cards will only be put on the table after a few years of operations. Right now it looks good for Boeing; let’s just hope everything goes as advertised.

My company has worked on the 777 , and has worked as consultants for many boeing suppliers in japan , italy , south korea etc . I have been personally envolved with the 787 partners for about 8 months , and through my expereince i can say that as far as production lines , products comming out of the line , integrity of products , Quality control etc the program is bette placed then what the 777 was at during this time . Moreover we have recomended after quite detailed analysis to some customers to cut safety margins on there parts that they are producing ( i cannot tell you which companies and what parts , hope u understand) . As of now all is looking good for boeing , and the biggest problem seems to be that of fastners which are in scarce supply , but they are working around that .

This is critical phase in the 787 , many expected boeing to fail misserably because the 787 was deemed by many to be too complicated for the timeframe that it was envisioned in , totally different materials (50%+ composite by weight) , completely radical material production process , completely different assembly process , very high and rapid increase in production , challenging targets for performance etc etc . As time goes by we will learn more but so far things are looking quite good but as you said anything can happen .

Spoiler’s gloom-and-doom: Let’s not forget that the 787 has yet to prove its technology in real world! Airbus has gambled with the 380 and lost (economically), but Boeing is also gambling with the 787 (technologically + economically), and cards will only be put on the table after a few years of operations. Right now it looks good for Boeing; let’s just hope everything goes as advertised.

apologies, i haven’t done the requested comparison, but right off the top of my head i know that dl has applied for china twice and lost, due to politics (they are now overhauling domestic 767s at HAECO and re-applying, coincidence?). aa was awarded a china route and their idiot apa pilots caused them to lose it (they are now asking for a 30% raise!!). I would submit that china is a special case due to limited slots, like lhr, but that is changing.

I did another search for a route that i take often . I searched buisness class for JFK to singapore changi , DL has buisness/first class , whereas i searched buisness class for EK , SQ etc –

DL –

JFK-Berlin-Singapore , via CDG , 767-300ER , A319 , DL 777

Cost – buisness/first delta – roundtrip – 9400$ @ delta website

Emirates –

JFK-DXB-SIN , both 777300 ER’s

Price for buisness package – round trip 7438$

Singapore airlines –

JFK-FRA-SIN – 7300$

United –

Buisness – 7400$

So you can see for this trip JFK-SIN the premium product prices are very competitive for the 3 airlines barring delta , but they dont have a direct flight from FRA to SIN so you take longer . I like the product on SQ better then EK , but i fly BA quite a bit on this route . BA’s product for that route costs a bit more , but for me there is usually work to do in london . Also VS is a better option then many US carriers . On US carrier that i like is CO . I flew EWR to DEL twice in the last 6 months and had to say there buisness/first product was very good , not the best in the class but it was very nice and the price was also very modest , moreover it was a direct flight .

Also for Across the pond flights –

JFK-FRA –

Delta buisness/first 767-300ER – Cost 6400$ roundtrip
Singapore airlines 773ER – cost – 4900$ ( there new buisness class is very very good)
United airlines – buisness starts 7000$+
Virgin atlantic – 7000-8000$

I dont know about emirates i have never used them on this route , but singapore airlines , with there new buisness class is a steal for those prices

The point is simple , airlines like EK,SQ,QR,VS etc are high end for sure , but there prices are not rediculously high for most routes as compared to some of the legacy carriers . As we see delta is more expensive on 2 routes i have mentioned , yet there buisness product is very mediocre . SQ has a brand new , buisness class setup with 77W and there service is also top notch . EK and QR are different from SQ and VS , they are in super-expansion mode but thats there buisness strategy , to make dubai (for EK) as the new big hub for world travel . lets see if it works for them so far they are growing well , have a loyal customer base and there profits are rising much opposite of what the legacy carriers specially here in the US are doing .

What is *genuine* 10 abreast?

Genuine 10 abreast is that the seat and aisle width would be acceptable to a wider array of airlines not just charter airlines . Basically according the aircraft should be capable of seating 10 abreast at equal to or prefereable greater comfort then the 777 today.

So, from exactly 777 width up to 10 cm more.

That would be my assumption , but i could be wrong as boeing is more informed . Also the 787 and 350 have thinner sidewalls so that creates more room IIRC , you put that on a space slightly wider then the 777 and you can appeal to a lot more airlines for 10Y seating then what the 777 does .

There are NO delivery dates for new 748-s. Boeing has never sold any 748. All 748-s ever sold were sold by Hawker-Siddeley.

You know that the 747-800 is often called 748 right ?

Why discard a still good 747-400?

The replacement cycle aint that far but the A380 costs even less to operate then the 744 infact upto many percent less , so why arent airlines comming out with huge a380 orders ? 156 sold ( my last count) over 7 years isnt too much to boast about .

350, 430-450 by which count?

No count. Although that would be an ideal size , the 787-10 would most likely seat something like 320 or something like that in standard configuration , so the lower end of hte Y3 should ideally be right where the higher end of the A350 is positioned , with the higher end being farther out . Usually boeing has done the 20% strech so by that standard the lower end of Y3 should be about 20%-30% more capacity then the 787-10

777 has maximum of 440 for -200 and 550 for -300.

Does any airline seat 550 on the 77W? The boeing published information states something like 368 PAX in 3 class at 9 abreast economy . The Y3’s lower limit should be aound that or a little less at 9Y IMHO ( remeber this is my opinion , neither I nor you know what boeing has in mind) but it should appeal much more as 10Y almost as much so as the 787 appeals to airlines at 9Y .

[QUOTE=bring_it_on;1121887][QUOTE]Wait again. What do you think Y3 is supposed to be?

787 is 577 cm outside.
A350XWB is 591 cm.
Tristar is 597 cm.
DC-10/MD-11 is 602 cm.
Il-86/96 is 608 cm.
777 is 620 cm.
747 is 650 cm.

I was talking about internal space , my bad , i should have mentioned the cross sections .

Does not change all that much. 787 is around 547 cm. 25 to 36 cm wider is 572 to 583 cm. 777 is 584 cm

Anyways it should be ( according to me around the 620-630)

So, from exactly 777 width up to 10 cm more.

however they would probably want to have it as a genuine 10 abreast in airline configuration ,

What is *genuine* 10 abreast?

so a comfortable 9 abreast and upgradable 10 abreast that many airlines like

747 had comfortable 9 abreast when built. On the other hand, both Tristar and DC-10 can be and have been upgraded to 10 abreast – Finnair, a legacy, flies 10 abreast MD-11 right now.

I dont understand what you mean out of production? Boeing has been selling it just like airbus , and delivery dates for new 748’s

There are NO delivery dates for new 748-s. Boeing has never sold any 748. All 748-s ever sold were sold by Hawker-Siddeley.

I wonder if that logic was true why the airlines arent flocking to buy A380 and 748.

Perhaps because, although a 747-800 produces a little extra income compared to 747-400 every trip, it costs a lot to buy in the first place. Why discard a still good 747-400?

I dont know anything on the Y3 . Do you? All is known is that it should seat around 350 on the lower end and acc. to some studies around 430-450 in the upper end . If that is true , then add to that a 2.5 gen CFRP , brand new engines and what you have is lower casm then both 787 and 350 .

350, 430-450 by which count?
777 has maximum of 440 for -200 and 550 for -300. What is the standardized seat capacity of 777 to the exact same standards which give 350 for Y3 lower end and 430-450 for upper end?

Thats fine , but the are totally different market . EK , SQ etc arent competing with ryanair customers. Moreover look at these airlines , there books are becoming better , they are posting nice results , there yeilds on most routes are awsome and they are givng an excellent product. Everytime i have traveled SQ buisness class its been nearly full . Also i have travelled SQ economy on many occasions from Singapore to LAX and there economy product is very good , Not bad price and is usually is full .

For fun sake i did a quick search on JFK – PEK flights (because i might have to go there for buisness) and i can get EK going on 26th economy and comming back 29th june for 2000$ with taxes , and about 7500 for buisness product. I would love if you could do a search for AA , US , CO , DL and what they are asking for this trip .

Plus they are also very competitive

apologies, i haven’t done the requested comparison, but right off the top of my head i know that dl has applied for china twice and lost, due to politics (they are now overhauling domestic 767s at HAECO and re-applying, coincidence?). aa was awarded a china route and their idiot apa pilots caused them to lose it (they are now asking for a 30% raise!!). I would submit that china is a special case due to limited slots, like lhr, but that is changing.

[QUOTE]Wait again. What do you think Y3 is supposed to be?

787 is 577 cm outside.
A350XWB is 591 cm.
Tristar is 597 cm.
DC-10/MD-11 is 602 cm.
Il-86/96 is 608 cm.
777 is 620 cm.
747 is 650 cm.

QUOTE]

I was talking about internal space , my bad , i should have mentioned the cross sections . Anyways it should be ( according to me around the 620-630) however they would probably want to have it as a genuine 10 abreast in airline configuration , so a comfortable 9 abreast and upgradable 10 abreast that many airlines like , there are all of sorts of theory , but if a market case so dictates then they could do a completely new aircraft.

Boeing has been talking about 787-10, but has failed to launch it. Why? Because it is not really that good?

Really? That super secret news that i have never heard . Please tell me specs of the 787-10 and where it failed , and against which competition has it failed . This is new news to me , i am deeply facinated .

I thought that the reason why boeing isnt launching the 787-10 was that the A350-900 is still a moving target and as it is boeing is totally booked out till 2012 so cannot offer delivery slots until they take a key descision to up production . But you probably have inside information about specs and specifics so please enlighten us.

The 787-10 has taken a back seat now at boeing,because its competitor at airbus is still very much a moving target , in the words of mike bair ” we will wait to see what the A350 is or isnt” so no need for launching 787-10 now as you cant deliver it in 4 years time anyways without upping production . Remember boeing doesnt need 7 years between launch and EIS 3-4 years is enough.

Also i sometimes really love the idea of adding a new wing to a 787 , making the -11 and ER varients with MTOW of 600,000 plus ! IIRC the wing limit is 600,000 or 650,000?

748 was out of production by the time 2 years ago.

I dont understand what you mean out of production? Boeing has been selling it just like airbus , and delivery dates for new 748’s and 380’s are very much similar.

Suppose that you can fly 747-800 at the exact same trip cost as 747-400.

If you fill your 747-400 with 370 seats, then your 747-800 can have 405 seats of the same size.

Your RASM may decrease, but your trip revenue will not decrease, and it will certainly increase.

You may sell the same 370 tickets at exact same price as the 370 tickets of 747-400 and leave the extra 35 seats simply empty. If your trip costs are exact same as assumed, you are losing no money by this.

Or else you may sell the first 370 tickets at exact same price as on 747-400 – then sell the extra 35 at a heavy discount. Your profits from those 35 may be small, but they are there over and above what the first 370 have earned (if they were not there, you would leave the seats empty and still lose nothing, as above).

Or else you may install 370 slightly bigger seats, and charge a slightly higher price. The difference may be small, but it is there, over and above the profits of flying 370 passengers and 35 empty seats.

I wonder if that logic was true why the airlines arent flocking to buy A380 and 748.

Unless they are used on Y3, of course…

But Y3 would have to compete against 787-10, 350-1000, 777-300ER, 747-800. Do you think Y3 is competitive?

I dont know anything on the Y3 . Do you? All is known is that it should seat around 350 on the lower end and acc. to some studies around 430-450 in the upper end . If that is true , then add to that a 2.5 gen CFRP , brand new engines and what you have is lower casm then both 787 and 350 .

They are not. 748 uses turboprops

I thought the 748 used GEnx-2B67 ? is it a turboprop? the GE website calls it the next gen. turbofan:confused:

And regarding Y3 , the only problem would be engines , technically speaking boeing started out with project yellowstone after 2002 because they wanted technologies identified and ready to launch 3 aircraft of different size and different timeframes . The 787 crossection would be about say 10-14 inches narrower then what a Y3 would most likely have ( it will most likely be a 9Y comfortable and also able to do 10Y like 777 but more optimised side walls like on the 787 and 350)

Wait again. What do you think Y3 is supposed to be?

787 is 577 cm outside.
A350XWB is 591 cm.
Tristar is 597 cm.
DC-10/MD-11 is 602 cm.
Il-86/96 is 608 cm.
777 is 620 cm.
747 is 650 cm.

Say 25-36 cm wider than 787 would be 602-613 cm.

What is the point of having Y3 at all? If the difference with 787 is so small, why launch all-new cross-section, rather than stretch 787? Boeing has been talking about 787-10, but has failed to launch it. Why? Because it is not really that good?

And given that the difference with 777 is so small, why have all-new Y3 rather than tweak 777?

See , as you add seats onto an aircraft , your CASM decreases however so does your RASM because at the end of the day you still have to sell a whole lot of seats and that puts a lot of pricing pressure . As the seat count increases so does the market for SUPPORTING routes meaning that if you have 20 route pairs that can sustain (maybe just for example sake) the A380-800 at 525 seats , when you up the 525 to 700 the route pairs shrink to maybe 10-12 .

The market for supporting routes decreases with trip costs – not seat count. For a given trip cost, the market increases with seat count.

So for others it makes no sence , and your allready niche aircraft becomes even more niche . Moreover for airlines filling up 700 seats means that they have to drop prices ( there are very few routes if any that can now sustain 700 seats every day or twice daily at a premium rate) . What airlines want is to fil the aircraft at the highest possible price to the customer hence make a lot of profit , however as CASM drops , so does RASM on most routes so what happens is that airlines have to discount a heck of a lot to fill the damn aircraft up which lowers profitability .

Suppose that you can fly 747-800 at the exact same trip cost as 747-400.

If you fill your 747-400 with 370 seats, then your 747-800 can have 405 seats of the same size.

Your RASM may decrease, but your trip revenue will not decrease, and it will certainly increase.

You may sell the same 370 tickets at exact same price as the 370 tickets of 747-400 and leave the extra 35 seats simply empty. If your trip costs are exact same as assumed, you are losing no money by this.

Or else you may sell the first 370 tickets at exact same price as on 747-400 – then sell the extra 35 at a heavy discount. Your profits from those 35 may be small, but they are there over and above what the first 370 have earned (if they were not there, you would leave the seats empty and still lose nothing, as above).

Or else you may install 370 slightly bigger seats, and charge a slightly higher price. The difference may be small, but it is there, over and above the profits of flying 370 passengers and 35 empty seats.

Or you can combine all of the above approaches in any most profitable proportion.

and what 2 years since 748 launch airlines have still rather ordered the mid sized aircraft for intercontinental travel .

748 was out of production by the time 2 years ago. As was the whole Hawker-Siddeley product line. And 748 cannot fly intercontinentally.

I dont know what to say about that? 777 engines developed by GE werent used for something else . so whats the point ?

Unless they are used on Y3, of course…

But Y3 would have to compete against 787-10, 350-1000, 777-300ER, 747-800. Do you think Y3 is competitive?

Yes like they are being used on the 748 😉 .

They are not. 748 uses turboprops.

787 is very much smaller. And see my doubts about Y3.

First of all i dont know what context you are using the word “Smaller” Airlines chose A330 , 777’s over the 744 even though they were smaller . The point is that the 787 , 350 specially the big models are very CASM compeitive , to an extent that airlines can fragment away from VLA’s as the historic trend of the last decade has shown with intercontinental flight.

And regarding Y3 , the only problem would be engines , technically speaking boeing started out with project yellowstone after 2002 because they wanted technologies identified and ready to launch 3 aircraft of different size and different timeframes . The 787 crossection would be about say 10-14 inches narrower then what a Y3 would most likely have ( it will most likely be a 9Y comfortable and also able to do 10Y like 777 but more optimised side walls like on the 787 and 350) which isnt much trouble given a decade of design advancment , 10-15 years of experince of producing barrels and designing top end systems and sub systems . Only problem would be transportation but they have plenty of time to solve that . The Y3 starting 2015 would most likely pose less risk then a 787 did when launched in 2004 , because by then boeing would have had expereince with 2 CFRP barrel programs ie. 787 and 797 . 2.5 gen CFRP would be very effeceint .

But my point is, the development costs of A380-900 would be smaller than A380-800, partly because those costs are already included in the sunk costs of A380-800 development. And A380-800 is not selling partly because it is a shrink of A380-900.

I dont think that is the reason why it is not selling . Airbus regardless of having optimized the 380 for a -900 sized aircraft still lead the CASM war against aircrafts like 748 , 777 etc , even if we are to say that with the -900 the CASM balance widens , well it most likely comes to the same levels or actually becomes less with the comming in service of aircrafts like 787-10 and particularly the A350-1000 Because they are 20-30% even more eff. then the aircrafts mentioned above . That is the problem .

Guessing numbers for examples – if a B747-800 can carry 400 seats, while A380-800 can carry 500 seats for 120 % the costs of 747-800, then the airline can sell those 100 tickets at 80 % the price of first 400 tickets. They may not find those 100. However, if A380-900 can carry 600 seats for 110 % the costs of A380-800, then the airline can sell the last 100 tickets for 50 % the costs of the first 500 tickets. Which may turn out to be attractive.

Airlines may not order A380-800 in loads because it is almost as expensive as A380-900, but much smaller.

See , as you add seats onto an aircraft , your CASM decreases however so does your RASM because at the end of the day you still have to sell a whole lot of seats and that puts a lot of pricing pressure . As the seat count increases so does the market for SUPPORTING routes meaning that if you have 20 route pairs that can sustain (maybe just for example sake) the A380-800 at 525 seats , when you up the 525 to 700 the route pairs shrink to maybe 10-12 . So for others it makes no sence , and your allready niche aircraft becomes even more niche . Moreover for airlines filling up 700 seats means that they have to drop prices ( there are very few routes if any that can now sustain 700 seats every day or twice daily at a premium rate) . What airlines want is to fil the aircraft at the highest possible price to the customer hence make a lot of profit , however as CASM drops , so does RASM on most routes so what happens is that airlines have to discount a heck of a lot to fill the damn aircraft up which lowers profitability . There is a reason why the A330 , and 777 are more popular then VLA’s even though VLA’s offer more load and that is because for these aircrafts The RASM-CASM is favourable when comapared with the VLA’s , and between 7 years from the launch of the A380 and what 2 years since 748 launch airlines have still rather ordered the mid sized aircraft for intercontinental travel .

The only way that VLA’s can get popular again is if you decrease CASM by significant ammounts withouth having resiprocal effect on RASM , and that can only be done through making super effeceint aircrafts , and the wing has very little to do in that , ( its mostly engines which will get you 10-12 % ) . So only possible way to revive sales of 400+ PAX aircrafts is to make twins carry that many people however that seems unlikely for another decade maybe even more .

748 is far to small to compete with A380-800, or B747-800, or 787, or 737. And it is out of production.

Doesnt matter , had the 748 not been there most of the 744 operators would have had no option then the 380 , other then to fragment to smaller 777’s , however now they have options and for many the 748 suites the demand curve better . If airbus is targeting the 744 replacement market then trust me 748 will be a competitor in most deals . As we can see most new deals are like that . Look at BA deal as an example .

And the 748 purchased now , can be had in 2010-2011 whereas if i was to buy an A380 now i cant get delivery before that .

Y3 engines are good for nothing else – they would be too big for everything but VLA.

I dont know what to say about that? 777 engines developed by GE werent used for something else . so whats the point ?

Whereas any new engine developments for B787 or A350 can be adapted for new reengined versions of A380.

Yes like they are being used on the 748 😉 , but airbus can possibly use them but at extra added cost . Interesting to see what they do with the 380 if it doesnt sell, to get more development money from open market would be next to imposible unless they want to pay extraordinary high interest rates .