|
Post by airboche on Jun 26, 2017 10:34:12 GMT 1
You need structural modifications inside the wing to install winglets. There is no surprise that an old wing might not be able to take them. (Or the expensive mods needed might might not make economical sense) At any new A320 and 737 all wings have been modified to take winglets so you can add them on new built aircraft afterwards without big hassle.
|
|
|
Post by kevo350 on Jun 27, 2017 19:39:14 GMT 1
At Paris Air Show I asked John Leahy at the end of show if reports are correct that the wingtips aren't available as retrofit. He confirmed, adding they won't be done unless the A380 gets new orders. So what they are actually saying is "look at what you could have if you place an order". But at the current rate of production it could be quite a while before we see any Plus A380s actually taking to the skies.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 28, 2017 8:20:12 GMT 1
Airbus is trying to collect new orders, especially targeting present operators. If the improvements they offer could be retrofitted on existing frames, operators would be incited to keep them longer.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jul 5, 2017 10:38:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jul 10, 2017 8:06:24 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Jul 10, 2017 12:17:25 GMT 1
Some strategic A380 issue I don't understand: How can the aviation market grow constantly, including credible outlooks, and the need for big aircraft be so weak at the same time? More seats should be able to be filled?
|
|
cck
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 228
|
Post by cck on Jul 10, 2017 14:10:13 GMT 1
Some strategic A380 issue I don't understand: How can the aviation market grow constantly, including credible outlooks, and the need for big aircraft be so weak at the same time? More seats should be able to be filled? Improve in aircraft utilisation. I am not sure for other part of the world, but in South-east Asia full service airlines is utilise their aircraft at about 8-10 hour compare to previous 6-10 hour while LCC is around 13 hour & some are targeting 15 hour. Red eye flight is very common in far east.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 10, 2017 14:54:24 GMT 1
One major problem with very large aircraft is the lack of flexibility - in the low season, you don't know where to use them profitably. Likewise, maintenance periods create problems when you only have a small fleet.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 10, 2017 15:29:10 GMT 1
One major problem with very large aircraft is the lack of flexibility - in the low season, you don't know where to use them profitably. Likewise, maintenance periods create problems when you only have a small fleet. Some routes don't really have a low season, it might be lower but not low !
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jul 10, 2017 17:18:05 GMT 1
Sure we're seeing growing demand for air traffic but so far there are other ways to manage it. Airlines don't have to upgauge to the A380 to get more capacity , they can upguage smaller aircraft which is what we've seen with airlines going from the A320 to A321 etc. or from narrowbody aircraft to widebody aircraft. This is generally a cost effective way of increasing capacity as you're not necessarily introducing new types into the fleet or having drastic increases in capacity. Whilst upguaging is happening across all aircraft sizes, only a few airlines have the need and ability to go from a large widebody to an A380 (more on that later).
Also, there's an argument that airports are running out of capacity and whilst that's definately true in certain locations, it's not in others. Just look at Asia, there are new up airports going up all the time in China and there are expansion plans in place at airports such as Singapore and Hong Kong. This probably isn't the case in much of Europe, or the US although keep in mind, aviation growth relative to GDP growth is much stronger in developing countries than it is in developed countries (doesn't mean though that airport and airspace congestion is not an issue. It definitely is).
Furthermore aircraft like the 787 and A350 are allowing new routes to be profitably started, which reduces some need for hub to hub traffic. (Take for example SQ starting SIN-DUS on the A350. Now that that route is started there's probably less demand on SQ's SIN-FRA/MUC flight and hence less of a need to add capacity on those flights. It only works though if you have the slots in Singapore to start flights such as SIN-DUS)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are multiple reasons why the A380 has not been a smashing success that Airbus had hoped for. Only a few airlines are of the size where they can upgauge a flight to an A380 but one A380 route isn't enough, you need a few to gain a sizable fleet to make adding a new type worth it (eg, IAG has said that there are routes from IB and EI that can support an A380 but they need so few that it'll only be possible if they work with BA and their sizeable A380 fleet).
The A380 offers good economics on a per seat basis but that's the problem, you need it to be filled for it to work well. Buying an A380 is risky, it's an expensive aircraft and if for whatever reason (and there are so many reasons in aviation) the traffic is not there, what are you going to do with the aircraft (keep in mind there's yet to be an established second hand market so good luck trying to sell it!) As Philidor said, it's also inflexible. It's why I see Airbus's plan of adding more seats into the A380plus as being somewhat ineffective, the size of the aircraft and the risk involved is why some airlines are a bit apprehensive about operating it. Adding more seats won't solve the problem.
Additionaly, if because of the A380 you're adding capacity above demand growth, you'll need to lower the price and therefore, many of the additional seats that the A380 gives may be filled with low yielding traffic. It might even be more profitable to restrict capacity and hence operate a smaller aircraft with really good yields than to operate a larger aircraft at poorer yields.
With all that considered, also keep in mind, full service carrier like frequency, the long haul, the low cost business model has historically been somewhat questionable (especially if you have to fill 700+ seats, although recently the business case does appear to be getting more viable and is gaining popularity) and the A380 isn't a great cargo aircraft.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, do I think there's a place for the A380, certainly, for some airlines and in some markets the aircraft works and makes complete sense and the number of routes where it makes sense will grow.
Anyway, I hope all of the above makes sense since it's 2am where I am. Goodnight!
|
|