sunjet
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 385
|
Post by sunjet on Jun 7, 2013 10:21:30 GMT 1
Interesting reading! Surely with higher capacity you have to look into how practical it becomes, for example more Pax will increase seat revenue but possibly off-set by increase in amenities (toilets), supplies (food/water) etc. Just my thoughts on it....
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Jun 7, 2013 11:23:49 GMT 1
When A380-800 was evacuated, it had 853 seats. Namely 315 on upper deck, and 538 on lower deck.
Emirates and Lufthansa already have all cattle seats on lower deck. But Emirates has only 427, and Lufthansa only 420.
Does anyone have the actual seatmap of the 853 seat A380-800? Precisely where did Airbus put these 111 main deck cattle seats that even Emirates do not have?
Also, Airbus managed to evacuate A380-800 in 79 seconds out of 90. Broke a few bones in the process, though.
The Air Outre Mer interior is 840 seats. Well within the 853 seat capacity of A380-800.
But the configuration is specified, oddly, as 510 seats on main deck and 330 seats on upper deck.
Does it mean that Airbus has to evacuate another A380, and break some more bones, before Air Outre Mer can install 330 seats, or 316 seats, on upper deck?
When they do, what shall be the passenger capacity of A380? 853 seats, 840 seats or 868 seats?
|
|
|
Post by Flying Dutchman on Jun 12, 2013 10:13:54 GMT 1
Could the A380 improve fuel efficiency by changing to more pronounced winglets like blended winglets or raked wingtips? The present design is already quite old considering the developments of this technology. (2001?) Or maybe the 80m width limit makes that impossible?
|
|
harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Jun 12, 2013 19:16:40 GMT 1
Could the A380 improve fuel efficiency by changing to more pronounced winglets like blended winglets or raked wingtips? The present design is already quite old considering the developments of this technology. (2001?) Or maybe the 80m width limit makes that impossible? I read somewhere that the cost of infrastructure to allow wingspans of above 80m is astronomical. Sorry, no source.
|
|
Linie 9
in service - 1 year
Posts: 2,761
|
Post by Linie 9 on Jun 20, 2013 19:07:48 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Jun 21, 2013 14:42:09 GMT 1
I read somewhere that the cost of infrastructure to allow wingspans of above 80m is astronomical. Sorry, no source. Cossack has 88,4 m wingspan. But then, Cossack does not use passenger gates. What would be harder for infrastructure: plane with 88 m wingspan, or plane with 88 m length?
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jun 21, 2013 14:59:03 GMT 1
What would be harder for infrastructure: plane with 88 m wingspan, or plane with 88 m length? There's a hard limit on the wingspan and it is set at 80m. However, no such limit exists on the fuselage length AFAIK. Airbus says you can go upto 85m but beyond this infrastructure costs rise dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Oct 9, 2013 11:52:31 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 31, 2013 0:26:26 GMT 1
In an interview with French business paper "Les Echos" on October 29th, Bregier says he believes that a stretched version will exist in 10 to 15 years.
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Nov 9, 2013 22:46:40 GMT 1
As long as the -800 has several years of production in backlog, a stretch might cannibalise that backlog. From that point of view, launching the -900 now would be premature. Airbus would do well to milk the -800 for all it is worth, but the end of the -800 is not going to be dictated by the end of the backlog but by market pressure coming from competing aircraft, like the A350 and the 777X. This is true. I think the best time to launch the -900 would be when airlines start turning over their older -800s. So we could be looking at an EIS of 2020+. There's plenty of time for that and the last major scheduled development is the -1000 or the -800 depending on which one of them is assigned the 2017 EIS. And more important: the 777X. If the 777X threatens the economics of the A380 (and I'm sure it will) Airbus will have to improve the A380 around the end of the decade. I think XWB is bang on the money here. It remains to be seen just how good of an airplane the 777X is going to be, but my guess is that it's going to be a very competitive airplane that's going to put a lot of pressure on the A380. My best guess is that Airbus will put the TrentXWB on the A380 by the end of the decade and quite possibly launch the -900 along with it. It makes a lot of sense to use the TrentXWB for 3 reasons, first of all Airbus has experience with the TrentXWB on the wing of the A380 because the flight tests with the TrentXWB were done that way. Secondly, from what I heard, the TrentXWB incorporates the latest technologies that are going to be available to engines at the end of this decade and thirdly, the TrentXWB delivers thrust in exactly the range that the A380-800 and -900 are going to need it. With the exception of the GE90X, I don't see any other engine being offered on the "Next Generation" A380.
|
|