A380 Production Sadness

[jb747]

The 747-8 was Boeing's attempt to take the wind out of the 380's sails. No matter how nice the 747-8 is, it was totally wasted money. Both quads are niche products now, and the big twins have taken over the market. I don't think that the 787 is all that wonderful, from anything but an accountants' point of view, but the bigger twins will win the day.

On the other hand, there are times when the more engines the better. The quads will not only see out my flying days, but also the paxing days.

 

[straitman]

Interesting article and while I can understand the media may have been surprised by the announcement, I would be very surprised if senior Airbus management were so publicly blindsided.

We will never really know but I have a lot more faith in AW&ST than any of the regular news outlets. They are renowned for reporting aviation 'stuff' much more accurately than pretty much anyone else.

 

[defurax]

So I was reading a very interesting article in The Economist (https://www.economist.com/news/busi...ke-up-rules-allocating-take-and-landing-slots) this week about landing slots allocation at European airports. It seems that there is some pressure from LCC to change the old rules on slot allocations. Apparently the current IATA model is being challenged. This could mean that legacy carrier like AF and LH could lose many of their current slots if the European Commission decides to act. This I think would create demand for larger aircraft.

 

[straitman]

So I was reading a very interesting article in The Economist (https://www.economist.com/news/busi...ke-up-rules-allocating-take-and-landing-slots) this week about landing slots allocation at European airports. It seems that there is some pressure from LCC to change the old rules on slot allocations. Apparently the current IATA model is being challenged. This could mean that legacy carrier like AF and LH could lose many of their current slots if the European Commission decides to act. This I think would create demand for larger aircraft.

For the reasons mentioned above I think you are wrong. Remember that the 380 actually slows the passenger movement rate.

 

[kelvedon]

If, as quoted in the article " Last year Air France... sold a single daily landing and take-off slot at London Heathrow for $75m", I can well understand the LCCs' wanting the allocation system changed, but I thought the main reason for their use of secondary airports was the cost of landing fees.

 

[defurax]

For the reasons mentioned above I think you are wrong. Remember that the 380 actually slows the passenger movement rate.

I did read the whole thread, but if AF were to loose 25% of their slots at CDG and wanted to carry the same number of PAX I guess they would need bigger aircraft and maybe scheduling would need to be adapted to have many 747/380 departing in sequence. Let's see what happens in 20 years...

 

[kelvedon]

I did read the whole thread, but if AF were to loose 25% of their slots at CDG and wanted to carry the same number of PAX I guess they would need bigger aircraft and maybe scheduling would need to be adapted to have many 747/380 departing in sequence. Let's see what happens in 20 years...

In 2009 a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report concluded that "In most cases the A380 provides a modest increase in runway passenger throughput" ( though "Low density A380 configurations have a marginal or detrimental impact on passenger throughput")

And that "A380 operations come at the cost of reducing throughput of the runway in terms of operations "
- whatever that means?

http://ardent.mit.edu/airports/ASP_exercises/2009 reports/A380 Capacity slides.pdf

 

[Flying Fox]

UPS Orders 747-8F x14

The 747 isn't dead yet: 14 new jumbo jets ordered

All 32 of the new Boeing jets will be delivered by the end of 2022, adding more than 4 million kilograms of cargo capacity, UPS said.

Looks like this will keep the production line going until 2022 at least.

 

[Quickstatus]

And that "A380 operations come at the cost of reducing throughput of the runway in terms of operations "
- whatever that means?

everyone else has to give it space

 

[jb747]

And that "A380 operations come at the cost of reducing throughput of the runway in terms of operations "
- whatever that means?

It means a couple of things.

The aircraft is fairly slow to handle on the ground, and can require more time to line up, and to exit the runway after landing, than smaller types. You can alleviate some of that, but at the risk increasing jet blast problems. The separation between aircraft, not only following a 380, but also landing on a runway after one has just taken off, also slows movements. They also tend to be taxied slower than smaller machines.

A 380 landing 5 miles behind another 380, can be upset by the wake to the extent that full lateral control input will be needed. That's sporting coming into the flare... You can imagine what would happen with a smaller aircraft.

 

[Legoman]

everyone else has to give it space

And it needs a LOT of space from all reports I've heard. Like three times the airstream turbulence wake window behind it over and above any other aircraft. I've heard it needs a helluva lot of clear space behind even in flat, level, cruising flight too. It's not just a problem at TO + landing.

With that much turbulence, it's a wonder its fuel consumption isn't shockingly bad.

 

[Quickstatus]

And it needs a LOT of space from all reports I've heard. Like three times the airstream turbulence wake window behind it over and above any other aircraft. I've heard it needs a helluva lot of clear space behind even in flat, level, cruising flight too. It's not just a problem at TO + landing.

With that much turbulence, it's a wonder its fuel consumption isn't shockingly bad.

It’s a big aircraft. All relative. Fuel economy depends on what you want to measure
The wing is apparently over engineered- was to accomodate any high capacity or stretched version. But try telling that to QF32.

 

[Legoman]

It’s a big aircraft. All relative. Fuel economy depends on what you want to measure

True, but that's just playing with statistics to tell the story you want to hear. In reality, that's probably all that matters anyway, because as every engineer knows, it's accountants who run the world, not engineers, so the story is what's all important, not reality.

Fuel consumption can be quoted in any terms that sounds most favourable for economic sustainability. Qty/passenger, Qty/mile, Qty/$ revenue, Qty/emissions... but the reality is that stirring up all that air requires energy. Energy that comes from burning the fuel and energy that is entirely wasted not being used productively or efficiently. But that's OK as long as the accountants can make a positive sounding economic case out of doing so.

 

[rock86]

True, but that's just playing with statistics to tell the story you want to hear. In reality, that's probably all that matters anyway, because as every engineer knows, it's accountants who run the world, not engineers, so the story is what's all important, not reality.

Fuel consumption can be quoted in any terms that sounds most favourable for economic sustainability. Qty/passenger, Qty/mile, Qty/$ revenue, Qty/emissions... but the reality is that stirring up all that air requires energy. Energy that comes from burning the fuel and energy that is entirely wasted not being used productively or efficiently. But that's OK as long as the accountants can make a positive sounding economic case out of doing so.

Damn straight, haha

 

[Quickstatus]

Pretty sure I did not quote any statistics. “Three times more turbulence” sounds like a statistic. I’m sure there is more to aircraft fuel economy than just turbulence.

All those metrics you refer to actually are relevant and the numbers can change on the actual circumstances of the airline.

Additionally the study of aircraft economics is a very complicated / specialised area of expertise. Fuel consumption is a significant part but not the entire story.

 

[jb747]

Well, from what was said at the Singapore airshow the other day, the fuel burn of a 787 would appear to be about 42.5% of the A380 burn. But as you need two 787s to have approximately the same load, the burn rises to 95%. Two 787s cost about $400m USD, vs $375m USD for the 380. Crew costs for the 787 are higher, 'cos you need two of them.

It goes on and on, but the upshot is that the cost of moving 500 people isn't all that much different...

 

[jb747]

And it needs a LOT of space from all reports I've heard. Like three times the airstream turbulence wake window behind it over and above any other aircraft. I've heard it needs a helluva lot of clear space behind even in flat, level, cruising flight too. It's not just a problem at TO + landing.

The wake separation standards are readily available on the net, and nowhere does it need 3 times the space of any other aircraft. In general about 30% greater space is needed than would be given to any other heavy.

In cruising flight, separation standards are not based on wake.

With that much turbulence, it's a wonder its fuel consumption isn't shockingly bad.

On raw burn compared to weigh, it's about 10% better than the 747-400. The wing is very efficient.

 

[Legoman]

the cost of moving 500 people isn't all that much different...

And in truth, you wouldn't really expect it to be. After 100+ years of aviation development, any gains now are only incremental at best. There's no radical, fundamental difference between the planes in how they work to make a massive leap forward. They're both hollow tubes with two wings attached. They both have jet engines slung under those wings and those engines burn hydrocarbon-based fuels to produce the thrust. Given these fundamentals are the same, I would imagine that from an engineering perspective a 5% gain in fuel economy would be very pleasing indeed and be both economically and statistically significant. That 5% translated into accountancy-land probably means 10's of $mils/year in fuel savings to an airline.

 

[jb747]

And in truth, you wouldn't really expect it to be. After 100+ years of aviation development, any gains now are only incremental at best. There's no radical, fundamental difference between the planes in how they work to make a massive leap forward. They're both hollow tubes with two wings attached. They both have jet engines slung under those wings and those engines burn hydrocarbon-based fuels to produce the thrust. Given these fundamentals are the same, I would imagine that from an engineering perspective a 5% gain in fuel economy would be very pleasing indeed and be both economically and statistically significant. That 5% translated into accountancy-land probably means 10's of $mils/year in fuel savings to an airline.

Actually there are some much better shapes for aircraft, but for whatever reason they've not been pursued for airliners. Make good stealth bombers though.

Running two aircraft instead of one will, as you say, save millions on the fuel bill each year. Other handling costs will double. I suspect that maintenance will be about 20% more expensive overall. Engines are almost certainly more expensive. Crewing costs...you'd need approximately 6 extra Captains, 6 more FOs, and 12 SOs. Not only do you have their salary, but also ongoing training and certification costs. That alone would take a good chunk out of any fuel saving.

The upshot is that it isn't totally clear cut. To be honest, I don't think that either aircraft is the answer. One is too big, and the other too small.

 

[Quickstatus]

Size like a 777X or A350?

Bear in mind the economics of an airline based in Faraway places like Australia will be quite different to other places.
Instead of the majority of long haul in the 10 hours we have an additonal 3-5 hours for our definition of long haul. So Australian long haul aircraft relatively carries more fuel just so it can carry more fuel