Next A380 models

If the MTOW were bigger from the beginning, the A380 would be even heavier. Seeing how Boeing built 747-400ER for just 6 orders, why not build A380-800ER for, say, 20 orders instead of making the baseline A380-800 heavier and losing 50 orders?

Remind me, did the ER 747 have a shorter fuselage to get the whole weight down? Did the 747SP have a shorter fuse too?
On the principle of same wing, same fuel capacity, less weight = more range (Unless fuel capacity was lost in belly tanks of the fuse…I have no idea on that)

If the MTOW were bigger from the beginning, the A380 would be even heavier. Seeing how Boeing built 747-400ER for just 6 orders, why not build A380-800ER for, say, 20 orders instead of making the baseline A380-800 heavier and losing 50 orders?

Even a small increase in A380 range would raise the question of routes like SYD-HOU (13800 km), Sydney-Dallas or SYD-GRU (13400km).

Would markets exist?

Incidentally, A380 being 4 engine and free of ETOPS would help because the route between SYD-GRU and especially MEL-GRU go pretty antarctic…

If the demand was there, or is about to be there the A380 would have been designed to do the distance. The developing world has been considered in the range planner. As stated above, it fills the existing and near term demand profile. Syd to Hou are developed centres, no potential growth of trade between the two.
And don’t forget, the concept of the A380 was “Hub-spoke”. Replacing multi-flights to near locations. Eg if there is a Flight from NY to Milan and on same day a flight to Turin, one A380 would fly to “Italy” and the pax have to hop on a puddle-jumper for the final spoke.
The F is presently on hold, as you know. The weight problem on the ordinary one has magnified in the F design so it’s head-scratching time at Airbus.

There is plenty of scope to extend the fuse with a plug, should the need arise. IIRC the existing engines can cope with the extra MTOW.

It’s still too far away to be planning crew numbers yet. There seem to be a lot of other things in the pipeline between now and then anyway if rumours turn true.

Give us a clue then ? 😉

It’s still too far away to be planning crew numbers yet. There seem to be a lot of other things in the pipeline between now and then anyway if rumours turn true.

2013. Wish the original timescale was still in existence. Can’t wait to get my hands on this ugly behemoth.

Is there a waiting list amongst the Virgin airbus crews then Wys ?

BA, by a couple of years as it stands at the moment.

2013. Wish the original timescale was still in existence. Can’t wait to get my hands on this ugly behemoth.

Who then is the first to fly UK flag on A380? Virgin or British Airways?

2013. Wish the original timescale was still in existence. Can’t wait to get my hands on this ugly behemoth.

Does anyone know what the current timetable is for Virgin Atlantic’s A380 order, presuming they still plan to operate it ?

It’s only a matter of time before the suits at Qantas pressure Airbus for an increased MTOW

Currently 8000nm or 14800km are available. We all know that these are best case figures and do not include strong headwinds or operational fuel reserves above the required reserves.

The A380 has plenty of growth potential. If market demand is sufficient, a weight variant with 580t should be possible. Just as every aircraft type things have to establish, experience must grow. Airlines need to figure out what kind of tool they bought and what they can do about it. I keep on saying that the A380 is not just another aircraft, but it is a game changer (maybe comparable to the B767).

It’s only a matter of time before the suits at Qantas pressure Airbus for an increased MTOW

Even a small increase in A380 range would raise the question of routes like SYD-HOU (13800 km), Sydney-Dallas or SYD-GRU (13400km).

Would markets exist?

Incidentally, A380 being 4 engine and free of ETOPS would help because the route between SYD-GRU and especially MEL-GRU go pretty antarctic…

It’s only a matter of time before the suits at Qantas pressure Airbus for an increased MTOW

I heard fuel burn is 20% better than on the B747-400 (which actually was the A380 design goal), and actual fuel burn is even a tiny bit better than Airbus promised. Now, consider it to be 1 or 2%.

The numbers I heard was that the promised burn had been 17 % better. So the actual fuel burn was 3…4% better than Airbus promised.

First application is on race tracks between congested hubs. JFK, Heathrow, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Singapoor. Any excess A380 will be available to airlines earliest in 2011.

Only Singapore has A380 now. JFK is not a hub for any airline who has bought A380. BA did buy A380, but those take some time to deliver (after 2011 or so?). LH does have A380 orders. CX has not bought them – but promised to buy A380 if they increase MTOW and range.

A380 will be flying out of MEL, SYD and DXB as well.

So, for the airlines who get A380 – will they pick the A380s for the most voluminous routes within the existing B747-400 range, or for routes too long for B747-400?

It was after SIN-SYD had flown for a couple of months that SQ announced Trent 900 burns several % less fuel than Airbus had promised. 380-861 has not entered service. Will it be no better than Airbus promised, or a few % better like -841, or even better than -841? The range depends on that.

I heard fuel burn is 20% better than on the B747-400 (which actually was the A380 design goal), and actual fuel burn is even a tiny bit better than Airbus promised. Now, consider it to be 1 or 2%. Actually, a real useful average fuel burn can be established after a dozen and more are in service (although the A380 airframe has exceptionel manufacturing quality).

How many 707-s or DC-8s replaced the 747-100 that was 21 hours late on its entry into service? And 747-200 and 747SP could not be replaced because nothing had their range. Nor can A340-500 or 777-200LR. Thai has 1 sole A340-500HGW and 3 A340-500 non-HGW. The SQ and EK A340-500 fleets also are small… And one time of day is often the only time of day that schedules and timezones make sense, so any extra flights would have to fly at about the same time.
How does the cost per seat compare between an 181 seat A340-500 or a 238 seat B777-200LR and an A380-800?

Still doesn’t make sense. First application is on race tracks between congested hubs. JFK, Heathrow, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Singapoor. Any excess A380 will be available to airlines earliest in 2011.

Both engine options for the A380-800 yield a range of 8000nm with a normal passenger payload.

It was after SIN-SYD had flown for a couple of months that SQ announced Trent 900 burns several % less fuel than Airbus had promised. 380-861 has not entered service. Will it be no better than Airbus promised, or a few % better like -841, or even better than -841? The range depends on that.

Now, the OEW for airlines is normally higher, the passenger payload is a bit lower (see SQ with 490 seats instead of 555 initially assumed).

471. Emirates has 489. But SQ also has 375 seats on 747-400 instead of 416 assumed.

I guess these prestigious long range routes are not really for A380. Even if the general demand is present, you need to fill one aircraft that takes off at one time of the day. In the initial phase of operation any airline want to fly routes that can be covered by other aircraft, too, so they can kick in a B747-400 if necessary and pay the excess 100 passengers a drink as they have to stay on the ground (if A380 is fully booked).

How many 707-s or DC-8s replaced the 747-100 that was 21 hours late on its entry into service? And 747-200 and 747SP could not be replaced because nothing had their range. Nor can A340-500 or 777-200LR. Thai has 1 sole A340-500HGW and 3 A340-500 non-HGW. The SQ and EK A340-500 fleets also are small… And one time of day is often the only time of day that schedules and timezones make sense, so any extra flights would have to fly at about the same time.

How does the cost per seat compare between an 181 seat A340-500 or a 238 seat B777-200LR and an A380-800?

Depends on what missions are asked for.

Boeing designed and built Boeing 747-400ER to satisfy a single order for 6 planes – the Qantas ones.

Qantas wanted 747-400ER for the MEL-LAX route. 12 800 km, and LAX-MEL is westwards – 747-400 non-ER has payload-range restrictions.

Qantas 380-841 would enter into service on the same MEL-LAX, because SYD-LAX is comfortable for 747, but even 747-400ER still struggles on MEL-LAX.

SQ wants to use A380-841 on HKG-SFO – 11 200 km. SQ was worried that A380 would struggle with payload-range on the westbound side nevertheless. Now that A380 is flying SIN-SYD, they discovered that the fuel burn is several % better than Airbus promised – it would also be better on SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG…

EK plans flying A380 DXB-JFK (11 000 km).

There are a number of routes now flown by A340-500 and B777-200LR. EK has DXB-GRU (12 200 km). PIA has KHI-JFK (11 700 km). Indian has JFK-BOM (12 500 km). Singapore has A340-500 struggling on SIN-LAX (14100 km) and SIN-EWR (15 400 km).

Are there any attractive routes which are slightly beyond the range of the now A380 and which have sufficiently large demand to fill A380-800 rather than A340-500 or B777-200LR?

Both engine options for the A380-800 yield a range of 8000nm with a normal passenger payload. Now, the OEW for airlines is normally higher, the passenger payload is a bit lower (see SQ with 490 seats instead of 555 initially assumed). In the end, I would say that close to 8000nm is a safe range. The Airbus’ charts for range-payload include bulk freight and some reserve for OEW (mandatory fuel reserves are always included). There is always the option to reduce flight Mach number a tiny bit (.84 instead of .85) and get another ~100 to 200nm of range for it.

I guess these prestigious long range routes are not really for A380. Even if the general demand is present, you need to fill one aircraft that takes off at one time of the day. In the initial phase of operation any airline want to fly routes that can be covered by other aircraft, too, so they can kick in a B747-400 if necessary and pay the excess 100 passengers a drink as they have to stay on the ground (if A380 is fully booked).

the A380-800 already can fly all missions currently asked for.

Depends on what missions are asked for.

Boeing designed and built Boeing 747-400ER to satisfy a single order for 6 planes – the Qantas ones.

Qantas wanted 747-400ER for the MEL-LAX route. 12 800 km, and LAX-MEL is westwards – 747-400 non-ER has payload-range restrictions.

Qantas 380-841 would enter into service on the same MEL-LAX, because SYD-LAX is comfortable for 747, but even 747-400ER still struggles on MEL-LAX.

SQ wants to use A380-841 on HKG-SFO – 11 200 km. SQ was worried that A380 would struggle with payload-range on the westbound side nevertheless. Now that A380 is flying SIN-SYD, they discovered that the fuel burn is several % better than Airbus promised – it would also be better on SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG…

EK plans flying A380 DXB-JFK (11 000 km).

There are a number of routes now flown by A340-500 and B777-200LR. EK has DXB-GRU (12 200 km). PIA has KHI-JFK (11 700 km). Indian has JFK-BOM (12 500 km). Singapore has A340-500 struggling on SIN-LAX (14100 km) and SIN-EWR (15 400 km).

Are there any attractive routes which are slightly beyond the range of the now A380 and which have sufficiently large demand to fill A380-800 rather than A340-500 or B777-200LR?

What are the next A380 models Airbus would build?

Boeing 747-100 entered into service in January 1970. In June 1971, KLM started service of Boeing 747-200, with increased MTOW.

Douglas DC-10-10 entered into service in August 1971. In 1972, Douglas started delivering DC-10-40 and DC-10-30, with new wing, extra middle leg and increased MTOW.

Boeing 707-320 came out not very long after Boeing 707-120.

How much growth capacity is built into the Airbus 380-841?

The MTOW is 569 tons. There are mentions of MTOW like 590 tons, 625 tons, 650 tons…

Airbus 340-600HGW has MTOW of 380 tons and wing area like, 427 square metres. Which is barely more than half the 845 square metre wing area of A380.

If you want to build an A380 model whose wing loading, stall speed and runway length is similar to A340-600HGW, you get MTOW of about 750 tons!

So, what would be the next A380 models? And when would Airbus be ready to deliver them?

Different than B747-100 or early DC-10 the A380-800 already can fly all missions currently asked for. The B747-100 had a range/payload problem due to low MTOW and the mediocre performance of early JT9D engines. Still it was the longest range aircraft and many airlines traded payload for range.

Anyways, the general aerodynamic configuration allows for some growth, which is also a disadvantage for current operators. First thing we’ll may see is a weight increase to ~590t (equals A380F initial specifications) as this is potentially already covered by current design. For a potential -900 (which launch I don’t see before 2010) the MTOW might increase to a level of 620t to prevent big penalties in range. Afterwards a further increase would require substantial re-design and hence investment. The A380 is designed to cover the market for the next 25 years.

Always remember: big aircraft are not like small aircraft and problems are a quadratic function of weight.