AHC: Keep A380 great
- Thread starter SgtRL-3
- Start date
When Airbus sees Boeing’s initial performance numbers on the 777, realize the A340 is dead and scrap the A340-500 and A340-600 in lieu of a clean sheet large twin (a proto-A350) designed to box in the 777 on the upper end while the PIP’d A330-300 eats into the 777’s marketshare on the lower end of the market (as per OTL). This A380 twin could replace large numbers of 747-200s in competition with the 777-300ER.
I’m not sure if you could sell 1500 of these “A380s” like the 747, particularly with the 777-300ER being a home run, but you can sure sell more than the 250 that were sold OTL.
If you want to keep the A380 as a double decker quad larger than the 747-400, scrap the larger wing and beefier wingbox that led to the A380-800 being horrendously overbuilt for its size to accommodate the future stretch into the A380-900. This will make the -800 more efficient and more competitive with the 777-300ER on thinner routes that could handle the capacity of a 747-400 but were a bit small for the OTL A380. This might also help with the A380’s cargo hauling capabilities—a task where the 777-300ER excelled.
I’m not sure if you could sell 1500 of these “A380s” like the 747, particularly with the 777-300ER being a home run, but you can sure sell more than the 250 that were sold OTL.
If you want to keep the A380 as a double decker quad larger than the 747-400, scrap the larger wing and beefier wingbox that led to the A380-800 being horrendously overbuilt for its size to accommodate the future stretch into the A380-900. This will make the -800 more efficient and more competitive with the 777-300ER on thinner routes that could handle the capacity of a 747-400 but were a bit small for the OTL A380. This might also help with the A380’s cargo hauling capabilities—a task where the 777-300ER excelled.
I would ask...is the A380 less successful than the 747 over the same window? Would it count to merely sell the same as the 747 over the window, or must the A380 make up for the 30-year
They sold 249 of them over the life of the airframe, after all, starting order in 2001 and deliveries in 2007. The 747-800 has sold only 155 units, with 147 delivered from orders starting in 2005 and deliveries starting in 2011. The 747-400 delivered another 38 between 2007 and the end of its production in 2009, which means there were actually fewer total 747 deliveries during the time when both 747 and A380 were delivering. The 747-400's order list isn't as straightforwardly collected on the Wikipedia page, but they delivered 157 from 2001 to 2009, presumably with some of those ordered before 2001 (and thus before the A380 was even an option). Thus, if you only compare the 747 and the A380 over the time when both planes existed, they look pretty comparable in sales. The 747 has an advantage from the improved engines on the 747-800, roughly 5 to 10 years newer than the engines on the A380 and thus more efficient, so perhaps a second generation re-engined A380 might have been even more competitive (though needs more development spending on a plane with very few deliveries or orders and whose development wouldn't yet be fully paid for already). Similarly, having a plane which was more cost effective as a freighter and actually managed freighter orders/deliveries would help compete for more of the 100 747-800Fs.
However, as @NOLAWildcat said, the bigger issue is the 777 and other large twins directly eating into the large-hub market the 747 and A380 served. Both planes are now being continued within a few years of each other, with the new focus on the large twins which have nearly the same capacity and in some cases longer range with higher efficiency, the ability to operate from more airports (both due to scale and due to needing smaller minimum market size). That's what you need to fix to get both the jumbos to stick around, and give the A380 a chance to really try to beat the 747.
They sold 249 of them over the life of the airframe, after all, starting order in 2001 and deliveries in 2007. The 747-800 has sold only 155 units, with 147 delivered from orders starting in 2005 and deliveries starting in 2011. The 747-400 delivered another 38 between 2007 and the end of its production in 2009, which means there were actually fewer total 747 deliveries during the time when both 747 and A380 were delivering. The 747-400's order list isn't as straightforwardly collected on the Wikipedia page, but they delivered 157 from 2001 to 2009, presumably with some of those ordered before 2001 (and thus before the A380 was even an option). Thus, if you only compare the 747 and the A380 over the time when both planes existed, they look pretty comparable in sales. The 747 has an advantage from the improved engines on the 747-800, roughly 5 to 10 years newer than the engines on the A380 and thus more efficient, so perhaps a second generation re-engined A380 might have been even more competitive (though needs more development spending on a plane with very few deliveries or orders and whose development wouldn't yet be fully paid for already). Similarly, having a plane which was more cost effective as a freighter and actually managed freighter orders/deliveries would help compete for more of the 100 747-800Fs.
However, as @NOLAWildcat said, the bigger issue is the 777 and other large twins directly eating into the large-hub market the 747 and A380 served. Both planes are now being continued within a few years of each other, with the new focus on the large twins which have nearly the same capacity and in some cases longer range with higher efficiency, the ability to operate from more airports (both due to scale and due to needing smaller minimum market size). That's what you need to fix to get both the jumbos to stick around, and give the A380 a chance to really try to beat the 747.
Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
1) Keep 'hub and spoke' trunk route service viable as in forgo the 'point to point' service that we are now seeing since 2000. Isn't this what does in the A380?
2) Two engines are more economical than 4, could the A380 be designed with two engines (2 x 120,000/150,000 lb)???
I'm actually surprised hub and spoke declined as fast as it did.
Sure, if you live in Boston, a Boston-Vienna thin route makes a nonstop flight instead of two stops (e.g. JFK and Schipol), but if you live in Syracuse, NY as I do, you have to fly to a hub to get anywhere. Thin routes are useless for anyone not in or near a major city.
You want to fly from Syracuse or from Iowa to e.g. Tallinn, you HAVE to fly through hubs, anyway.
----
To more closely address the topic, yeah, starting out with the overweight -800 was a bad idea. Either start with the -900 or build something fit for the size.
Also, in retrospect, when you get bitten on the ass by new engines coming out for the big twins, when the engine makers assured you there was no such products coming, bite the bullet and re-engine the thing early.
Thirdly, build a freighter version, too.
Sure, if you live in Boston, a Boston-Vienna thin route makes a nonstop flight instead of two stops (e.g. JFK and Schipol), but if you live in Syracuse, NY as I do, you have to fly to a hub to get anywhere. Thin routes are useless for anyone not in or near a major city.
You want to fly from Syracuse or from Iowa to e.g. Tallinn, you HAVE to fly through hubs, anyway.
----
To more closely address the topic, yeah, starting out with the overweight -800 was a bad idea. Either start with the -900 or build something fit for the size.
Also, in retrospect, when you get bitten on the ass by new engines coming out for the big twins, when the engine makers assured you there was no such products coming, bite the bullet and re-engine the thing early.
Thirdly, build a freighter version, too.
Last edited: