daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 25th, 2014, 11:02 PM   #6901
Momo1435
-----アンジュルム-----
 
Momo1435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: アルフェナンデンライン
Posts: 35,175
Likes (Received): 62801

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
However, there will always be a market for the A380 where slot-restricted airports require larger capacity to allow even more passengers to serve them without the need of adding more gates or expanding terminal space. The big challenge if one wants an A380 to operate to an airport on a daily basis: runway length.
That's just Airbus marketing talk, the truth is that worldwide there are only a handful airports max were this is the case. Which is reflected in the small number of airlines that have ordered the A380 and even lower number of airlines that turned operating the A380 into a undisputed success. Even with airlines operating the A380 into such airports.

If the A380 was just another plane there would not have been any talk about a new engine option variant.

It's also a matter of competition between Rolls Royce and General Electric as the engine manufactures. The A380neo is set to be exclusively powered by RR engines, dropping the Engine Alliance (joined GE & P&W development) engines. With Emirates canceling the A350 order they also canceled the RR engines. As Emirates has only ordered EA engines for 90 of their A380 they could change to RR for the remainder, pushing Airbus together to go for the neo. Which then will be a very limited upgrade, mainly the engines and maybe new sharklets on the wingtips and the possibility to go 11 abreast on the main deck. Putting most of the costs for the development of the A380neo with RR instead of Airbus. As RR wants to capitalize on the development of the Trent 1000 (787) and the Trent XWB (A350) engines the new engines for the A380 could just be a simple variation of this family of next gen engines, reducing the actual development costs.
__________________
Support your Idols
キタ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ฅ(๑⊙д⊙๑)ฅ!! ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━!!!
Japan Projects & Construction

patel2897 liked this post
Momo1435 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 26th, 2014, 12:18 AM   #6902
TedToToe
Registered User
 
TedToToe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: London
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline View Post
Engine parts supplier questions case for Airbus A380 upgrade Excerpt 23 October 2014 BERLIN/PARIS (Reuters) - The case for developing new engines for a sales-boosting upgrade to Airbus's A380 passenger jet has been called into question by a partner in one of the planemaker's engine suppliers. A lean sales patch has increased pressure on Airbus <AIR.PA> to bow to the demands of its biggest customer - Dubai's Emirates airline - for new engines for the 525-seat A380, the world's largest airliner, to improve its efficiency after the recent launch of rival Boeing's <BA.N> 406-seat 777X. "In principle, it's a challenging business case, whether it makes sense to develop an engine just for the A380, bearing in the mind the potential order book," Reiner Winkler, chief executive of MTU Aero Engines <MTXGn.DE>, told analysts. "You've seen the volumes. That's a decision for Airbus and the OEMs (manufacturers). We don't see any risk for our existing order book," he said on a conference call on the German company's third-quarter earnings on Thursday. MTU supplies an important set of parts for the GP7000 engines built for the A380 by Engine Alliance, a joint venture between General Electric <GE.N> and Pratt & Whitney <UTX.N>. Engine Alliance competes with Rolls-Royce <RR.L> to supply engines for the A380 double-decker, four-engined jet.
It is Rolls Royce that is most likely to supply the engine for the NEO because the Engine Alliance agreement precludes the further development of the GP7000. On this basis, what MTU has to say is fairly irrelevant.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
TedToToe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2014, 12:23 AM   #6903
TedToToe
Registered User
 
TedToToe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: London
Posts: 348
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams View Post
The big challenge if one wants an A380 to operate to an airport on a daily basis: runway length.
Actually, given the wing area of an A380, you will find the 777-300ER requires more runway length. It's the A380's 80m span that poses more of a problem with regard to taxiways and gates.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
TedToToe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2014, 06:27 AM   #6904
Buffalomatt1027
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,291
Likes (Received): 373

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momo1435 View Post
That's just Airbus marketing talk, the truth is that worldwide there are only a handful airports max were this is the case. Which is reflected in the small number of airlines that have ordered the A380 and even lower number of airlines that turned operating the A380 into a undisputed success. Even with airlines operating the A380 into such airports.

If the A380 was just another plane there would not have been any talk about a new engine option variant.

It's also a matter of competition between Rolls Royce and General Electric as the engine manufactures. The A380neo is set to be exclusively powered by RR engines, dropping the Engine Alliance (joined GE & P&W development) engines. With Emirates canceling the A350 order they also canceled the RR engines. As Emirates has only ordered EA engines for 90 of their A380 they could change to RR for the remainder, pushing Airbus together to go for the neo. Which then will be a very limited upgrade, mainly the engines and maybe new sharklets on the wingtips and the possibility to go 11 abreast on the main deck. Putting most of the costs for the development of the A380neo with RR instead of Airbus. As RR wants to capitalize on the development of the Trent 1000 (787) and the Trent XWB (A350) engines the new engines for the A380 could just be a simple variation of this family of next gen engines, reducing the actual development costs.
The A380 is going to have to do much more then just add new engines. Gotta lighten her up some way, some how.

Basically do what boeing did with the 748-8i ....and do that to the A380 neo.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Buffalomatt1027 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2014, 08:47 AM   #6905
firoz bharmal
Registered User
 
firoz bharmal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rajkot , Dubai.....
Posts: 3,207
Likes (Received): 2416

EE engines are more reliable thenot RR. Aso in.past many of A 380 grounded due to engine failureof Singapore and Quantas. But Emirates didn't cause they had EE efficient engines......!
__________________
Waiting for Next Vacation......

Zaz965 liked this post
firoz bharmal no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2014, 08:53 AM   #6906
fieldsofdreams
PH + SF Super Moderator
 
fieldsofdreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manila • San Francisco
Posts: 18,804
Likes (Received): 11243

Air France A380-800 (reg. F-HPJA)

__________________
Anthony or FOD the MOD • Urban Studies & Planning, SF State, UC Berkeley, and San Jose State
Philippine ForumsSF Bay Area ForumsBay Area TransitNEW! SF Bay Area and NorCal in Pictures
Photo Albums: FlickrPhotobucketInstagram

San Carlos • San Bruno • San Mateo • Saint Helena • Ross

Bren liked this post
fieldsofdreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2014, 05:17 PM   #6907
jam5
Registered User
 
jam5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,505
Likes (Received): 534

-----
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by jam5; October 28th, 2014 at 05:25 AM.
jam5 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2014, 08:34 AM   #6908
ddes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,464
Likes (Received): 928

This talk that the A380 was conceived with old technology is not exactly true. Right now, it remains the most efficient airliner if you can 1) charge the right airfares, and 2) fill it. The issue with the A380 arises when you bring the 777-9 into the picture - with it seating almost 440 passengers, the cost efficiency skews in favor of the 777-9, especially if you compare the airlines who carry less than that number on the A380.

This is especially crucial for Emirates, who configures their existing 777-300ERs near that number, so they need a clearer separation.

The only way to sway the cost efficiency back in favor of the A380, is to raise the seat count. Obviously, the stretch might be too expensive. Hence, the NEO arises. The new engine, combined with the raising of the lower deck level so that Economy configuration increases to 3-5-3, and the lightening of the structure, will allow the A380 to be competitive.
__________________

firoz bharmal, Zaz965 liked this post
ddes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2014, 06:35 PM   #6909
Buffalomatt1027
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,291
Likes (Received): 373

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddes View Post
This talk that the A380 was conceived with old technology is not exactly true. Right now, it remains the most efficient airliner if you can 1) charge the right airfares, and 2) fill it. The issue with the A380 arises when you bring the 777-9 into the picture - with it seating almost 440 passengers, the cost efficiency skews in favor of the 777-9, especially if you compare the airlines who carry less than that number on the A380.

This is especially crucial for Emirates, who configures their existing 777-300ERs near that number, so they need a clearer separation.

The only way to sway the cost efficiency back in favor of the A380, is to raise the seat count. Obviously, the stretch might be too expensive. Hence, the NEO arises. The new engine, combined with the raising of the lower deck level so that Economy configuration increases to 3-5-3, and the lightening of the structure, will allow the A380 to be competitive.
Your last paragraph contradicts itself ......

at first you say you need to add passengers ....okay

then you said lightening the structure .... add passengers adds weight. So they gain nothing.

Keep the same amount of passengers and lighten the load. That thing is a fat whale.

also adding seats is what airbus originally intended. The major issue is: Filling a 500 + seat plane. Its not nearly as easy as you make it out to seem.

On paper: sounds like a great idea and huge money cash cow.

In reality: Most a380s currently arent 100% filled each flight. To make money each flight, needs it to be 80% full. Thats a LOT of passengers needed just to break even!
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Buffalomatt1027 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2014, 10:27 PM   #6910
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18132

Don't think it is realistic to think airlines can ever balance out the capacity with the revenues, especially on a large untested aircraft type. In the ideal world, you can generate some efficiency ratio and optimize it, but the reality is the more seats you add, it is far more difficult to fill them at the right price. There is insufficient historic empirical data to find this optimization point anyway. This is why outside Emirates, airlines are struggling to fill these A380s to make them work. China Southern is a very good example of this.

Raising seat counts endlessly to fill bodies up will not be a good solution. More seats don't necessarily mean fuller planes or even more profitable flights. It just drives prices down and price wars hurt the bottom line. You can lighten the structure with new materials and better engines but these don't make much difference when airlines cannot fill their planes or have to resort to flash sales to fill them up at rock-bottom fares.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 05:31 AM   #6911
Gros Matou
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Montréal
Posts: 83
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalomatt1027 View Post
Your last paragraph contradicts itself ......

at first you say you need to add passengers ....okay

then you said lightening the structure .... add passengers adds weight. So they gain nothing.
Of course they gain something! If they can increase the number of passengers, they increase their revenue!

Quote:
Keep the same amount of passengers and lighten the load. That thing is a fat whale.
Well then you're doing only half the job.Let's say the plane can carry a payload of 100 tons for a specific range. If you lighten the structure, while keeping the structural properties of the aircraft (that is necessary), by 2 tons, that means you can carry 2 tons more of payload.

Sure, you could just chose to keep the amount of passengers the same and use less fuel, thus decreasing your expenses. But you could also chose to carry a bit more passengers to increase your revenue. If you have a profit margin above 0% for each ticket (let's hope it's the case, for the survival of the company :P ), then you will earn more money by carrying more people, than just choose to carry less weight.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Gros Matou no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 06:23 AM   #6912
Buffalomatt1027
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,291
Likes (Received): 373

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Matou View Post
Of course they gain something! If they can increase the number of passengers, they increase their revenue!



Well then you're doing only half the job.Let's say the plane can carry a payload of 100 tons for a specific range. If you lighten the structure, while keeping the structural properties of the aircraft (that is necessary), by 2 tons, that means you can carry 2 tons more of payload.

Sure, you could just chose to keep the amount of passengers the same and use less fuel, thus decreasing your expenses. But you could also chose to carry a bit more passengers to increase your revenue. If you have a profit margin above 0% for each ticket (let's hope it's the case, for the survival of the company :P ), then you will earn more money by carrying more people, than just choose to carry less weight.
The more passengers = more weight = more fuel = less profit. Why do you think airlines havent maximized the current a380s with 800 ish passengers?

Its the weight of additional 200 - 300 passengers and ... A380 airlines are having huge issues filling the entire plane. I have read it takes about 80% full to just break even.

Adding more seats doesnt mean they will be filled.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Buffalomatt1027 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 10:02 AM   #6913
ConteurDeGrues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 109
Likes (Received): 89

Quote:
Originally Posted by klm.b777 View Post
Is Etihad keeping its plane a secret or something..?? Cannot find any new photos about it..
It has been rolled out with new livery some time ago.
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...y-new-livery/#
ConteurDeGrues no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 11:36 AM   #6914
chuboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 299
Likes (Received): 89

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Matou View Post
Sure, you could just chose to keep the amount of passengers the same and use less fuel, thus decreasing your expenses. But you could also chose to carry a bit more passengers to increase your revenue.
Airlines do not have this luxury. They have very little control over how much fuel the plane uses and how much the fuel costs.

Furthermore, they cannot just choose to carry more passengers to increase their revenue. If it were that easy, every airline would have A380s that they fly full to the brim between every airport in the world. An airline has very little direct control over how many customers it gets.

In the short term, if an airline wants to increase the revenue per ticket sold, it will sell few tickets. On the other hand, if it wants to fill every seat, it will almost certainly have to lose money selling tickets.

Quote:
Of course they gain something! If they can increase the number of passengers, they increase their revenue!
And if they can't increase the number of passengers, then the airline is wasting money and fuel lifting the weight of an aircraft that is too large for the requirements of the route.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
chuboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 06:45 PM   #6915
Gros Matou
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Montréal
Posts: 83
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalomatt1027 View Post
The more passengers = more weight = more fuel = less profit.
Well, might as well not put any passengers in the plane then, because you'll go bankrupt pretty quickly if adding passengers reduce your profit.

Most companies have a profit margin of 1%. That means selling a ticket allows 1% more revenue than all the exploitation costs. That means putting more passengers on an airplane will make your plane heavier, yes, but because of the profit margin, you're still earning 1% more money than the extra weight costs you.

Quote:
Why do you think airlines havent maximized the current a380s with 800 ish passengers?
I'm not talking about filling it with 800 passengers (only economic class). Companies make more money by selling first class tickets, that's why there are a lot of first class seats and suites in most A380's.

Anyway, you won't be able to squeeze 800 passengers in an A380 that does a 15 000 km route, because you won't have enough payload margin to carry the fuel necessary for that range.

For example : Let's say that in the current situation, the A380 with maximum fuel (for maximum range) is limited to 350 passengers, even though there are 500 seats on the aircraft (the same aircraft used on shorter routes can be filled more, since less fuel is needed).

If you lighten the aircraft by 1 000 kg, that means you can carry 10 more passengers (assuming an average of 100 kg for each passenger and its luggage) on each route, while staying within the maximum payload admitted.

Sure, you could choose to continue carrying a maximum of 350 passengers on that particular route, and reduce your expenses thanks to the amount of fuel saved by lightening the aircraft.
But if you have a 1% profit margin on each ticket, you'll make more money by allowing the 10 extra passengers capacity because your revenues rise faster than your expenses. And that's true for every aircraft.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Gros Matou no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 06:51 PM   #6916
Gros Matou
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Montréal
Posts: 83
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
Airlines do not have this luxury. They have very little control over how much fuel the plane uses and how much the fuel costs.

Furthermore, they cannot just choose to carry more passengers to increase their revenue. If it were that easy, every airline would have A380s that they fly full to the brim between every airport in the world. An airline has very little direct control over how many customers it gets.

In the short term, if an airline wants to increase the revenue per ticket sold, it will sell few tickets. On the other hand, if it wants to fill every seat, it will almost certainly have to lose money selling tickets.


And if they can't increase the number of passengers, then the airline is wasting money and fuel lifting the weight of an aircraft that is too large for the requirements of the route.
I wasn't speaking about squeezing 800 passengers in an aircraft. I was speaking about the theoretical lightening of the aircraft. Ligthening the A380 by 1 000 kg, for example, would already be a great achievement, and it would allow to carry a few more passengers (about 10) on long range routes.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Gros Matou no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2014, 10:20 PM   #6917
Buffalomatt1027
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,291
Likes (Received): 373

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Matou View Post
Well, might as well not put any passengers in the plane then, because you'll go bankrupt pretty quickly if adding passengers reduce your profit.

Most companies have a profit margin of 1%. That means selling a ticket allows 1% more revenue than all the exploitation costs. That means putting more passengers on an airplane will make your plane heavier, yes, but because of the profit margin, you're still earning 1% more money than the extra weight costs you.



I'm not talking about filling it with 800 passengers (only economic class). Companies make more money by selling first class tickets, that's why there are a lot of first class seats and suites in most A380's.

Anyway, you won't be able to squeeze 800 passengers in an A380 that does a 15 000 km route, because you won't have enough payload margin to carry the fuel necessary for that range.

For example : Let's say that in the current situation, the A380 with maximum fuel (for maximum range) is limited to 350 passengers, even though there are 500 seats on the aircraft (the same aircraft used on shorter routes can be filled more, since less fuel is needed).

If you lighten the aircraft by 1 000 kg, that means you can carry 10 more passengers (assuming an average of 100 kg for each passenger and its luggage) on each route, while staying within the maximum payload admitted.

Sure, you could choose to continue carrying a maximum of 350 passengers on that particular route, and reduce your expenses thanks to the amount of fuel saved by lightening the aircraft.
But if you have a 1% profit margin on each ticket, you'll make more money by allowing the 10 extra passengers capacity because your revenues rise faster than your expenses. And that's true for every aircraft.
I get exactly what you are saying and agree. Lighten the fat plane up will save them a lot on fuel.

But adding more passengers (you used 10 extra passengers) That isnt necessary. Airlines now are struggling to fill a380s .....adding 10 more seats wont do anything if people wont fill those seats.
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
Buffalomatt1027 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2014, 12:46 AM   #6918
ZNaseer
Registered User
 
ZNaseer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 844
Likes (Received): 351



Malaysia Airlines A380 (9M-MND)
__________________

Zaz965 liked this post
ZNaseer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2014, 05:45 AM   #6919
baiu001
Registered User
 
baiu001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 155
Likes (Received): 107

Thai Airways A380 parallel flight on the sky with Ana B747.. Impressive!!

__________________
baiu001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2014, 11:17 AM   #6920
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18132











__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!

patel2897 liked this post
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
air france, airbus, airplane, changi airport, emirates, lufthansa, singapore airlines, suvarnabhumi airport, thai airways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium