|
Post by stealthmanbob on Aug 2, 2019 14:36:19 GMT 1
Msn 272 is the last one. There is a memo to all Airbus A380 suppliers online, from which I can not copy and paste a quote here. So just the URL under linkShort quote - "Serial production activities shall be maintained and secured up to MSN272 (rank 256). Each supplier shall ensure that it maintains the capacity and capability to deliver on-time and on-quality, with the required level of FAL support up to and including MSN272. This includes, where appropriate, the maintenance of the existing safety stocks to support the needs of Airbus production and FAL;"
|
|
|
Post by click4 on Aug 7, 2019 22:18:17 GMT 1
It’s a shame they couldn’t hang on long enough for the Rolls Royce Advance with Ultrafan, and until after they did their 900 stretch and A380 Plus upgrades.
Emirates said at one point they wanted a stretch and separately new engines.
The stretch, Plus modifications and new rolls Royce engines could of potentially turned things around for the A380
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 8, 2019 8:56:48 GMT 1
The stretch, Plus modifications and new rolls Royce engines could of potentially turned things around for the A380 That's what we enthusiasts were hoping for, but Airbus management said even that wouldn't have been enough to turn the programme around.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Aug 8, 2019 10:15:46 GMT 1
Airlines felt they didn't need even more seats.
The A380 would have needed at least the same engine generation as 787 and A350. Only then it's size could generate some cost advantage whenever fully loaded. Now with two new families of twin competitors the A380 market got drained too much.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Aug 8, 2019 11:24:39 GMT 1
I believe that the benefits for big "4-holer" are today nonexistent. Simply the expenses to run 4 engines are way too much. It is not the consumption only but mostly the maintenance. Up to that the benefit of one big plane in the congestion of big hubs is in real life moot - since the wake behind the big beast i.e. the need to have longer pauses between planes.
What we do see now is more flights to the secondary destinations i.e. better service to the passengers - they do not need to change planes in the mega-hubs - and it is a thing nobody is too thrilled to go through. Up to that smaller plane (with comparable economy) gives much more flexibility to the airlines. So I do not think that engines with efficiency better by optimistic 15-25% would change the situation by much.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 9, 2019 8:58:14 GMT 1
I agree with s543, except that I don't see direct flights to new destinations as a major event so far. In spite of all the marketing speech, the 787 hasn't brought about many of them.
A large frame, however, needs to be much more efficient than a smaller one to offset the reduced flexibility and increased risk. The A380 met new, lean, efficient competition and could not keep a sufficient cost advantage.
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Aug 9, 2019 9:21:58 GMT 1
I believe that the benefits for big "4-holer" are today nonexistent. Simply the expenses to run 4 engines are way too much. It is not the consumption only but mostly the maintenance. Up to that the benefit of one big plane in the congestion of big hubs is in real life moot - since the wake behind the big beast i.e. the need to have longer pauses between planes. What we do see now is more flights to the secondary destinations i.e. better service to the passengers - they do not need to change planes in the mega-hubs - and it is a thing nobody is too thrilled to go through. Up to that smaller plane (with comparable economy) gives much more flexibility to the airlines. So I do not think that engines with efficiency better by optimistic 15-25% would change the situation by much. How does anyone think then what Tim Clark of Emirates is thinking now then and how their strategy might cope? Is this why they need the larger airport for more slots of smaller planes? Unfortunately for them, range increases could make the Dubai stopover redundant for some routes soon.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Aug 9, 2019 9:33:11 GMT 1
I can follow you arguments however as there are so many super big cities these days (and more to come) I do see a need for airplane sizes above the biggest twins. Look at China, Asia and such. There are big airports ready to handle big planes, trunk routes and the passengers that can afford to fly. There MUST be a need for very big planes.
Maybe the A380 came to early and was lost in between generations but on the medium run I see quads (or possibly three engined) high capacity airliners returning. Possibly some blended wing body design will cover this?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 9, 2019 10:45:39 GMT 1
How does anyone think then what Tim Clark of Emirates is thinking now then and how their strategy might cope? Is this why they need the larger airport for more slots of smaller planes? Unfortunately for them, range increases could make the Dubai stopover redundant for some routes soon. I'm sure they felt the refusal to modernise the A380 was a let down from Airbus. How they will react is a difficult question ...
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 5, 2019 20:02:30 GMT 1
Airbus couldn't do it for essentially one customer only. While EK came to the rescue for the A380's demand China that had been so much expected to take plenty of them only ordered a very few. The A380 turned out to be some one hit wonder.
Plus: Airbus now had the more profitable to build and operate A350 that became the new flagship and was earmarked for further growth. Another nail in the coffin of the A380.
|
|