Good news for the A380 at last.

Comhrá

Emirates to order 36 Airbus A380s worth US$ 16 billion

Emirates today announced a US$ 16 billion deal for 36 additional Airbus A380 aircraft, with 20 firm orders and 16 options.

Emirates’ A380 fleet operates both GE and Rolls-Royce engines, and the airline is evaluating engine options for its latest A380 order.

The additional Airbus A380s will be delivered to Emirates from 2020 onwards. Together with the airline’s 101-strong A380 fleet and its current order backlog for 41 aircraft, this new order brings Emirates’ commitment to the A380 programme to 178 aircraft, worth over US$ 60 billion.

Emirates’ partnership with Airbus spans decades. Emirates is by far the largest Airbus A380 operator on the planet with 101 A380s in service today.

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-emirates-to-order-36-airbus-a380s-worth-us-16-billion/

john boye

Interesting to see BA are now apparently talking to Airbus about a new A380 order having abandoned plans to take second-hand frames. Could be life in the A380 program yet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-19/airbus-is-said-to-be-in-talks-with-british-airways-on-more-a380s

billy few mates

Do Emirates own their A380s outright or do they lease them?

Harry Palmr

As a casual observer am I correct that the whole super-jumbo thing turned out to be a bit of a relative flop?

Zonda999

Harry Palmr wrote: »

As a casual observer am I correct that the whole super-jumbo thing turned out to be a bit of a relative flop?

I wouldn't go as far as to say as that it was a flop. However sales were far less than expectations. If you're ever bored, watch the five part documentary that chronicles the development of the A380.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zSDuLOkJZU

In it John Leahy mentions possible sales of 1000 aircraft over 20 years, that will obviosuly now not happen, there have been 337 orders and 222 aircraft delivered, however, many of the outstanding orders will not actually be built unfortunately. I donlt think its a flop though, the airlines that use it are very happy with it by all accounts, but just may not need more aircraft or do not have the routes for the aircraft. Emirates do need the aircraft though, as do BA. I would now expect another order from BA for probably something like 5 to 10 aircraft

Larbre34

Harry Palmr wrote: »

As a casual observer am I correct that the whole super-jumbo thing turned out to be a bit of a relative flop?

It won't be known for definite for another 25 years. The programme life would've been factored in by Airbus as about 40 years, and the economics of the whole thing are dependent on upgrades, spares, refits etc across that span and beyond. If they had had to cease production this year, there is no doubt it would've put a massive dent in the overall success. But, they are having huge success with the A321 and A350 so overall prospects are good.

Comhrá

The fact that no orders came from Delta, AA or United must have made it's total global success somewhat less than originally expected.

Was the fact that no US airline bought it a political statement or did they just not see it as a good fit for their long-haul needs?

JCX BXC

Comhra wrote: »

The fact that no orders came from Delta, AA or United must have made it's total global success somewhat less than originally expected.

Was the fact that no US airline bought it a political statement or did they just not see it as a good fit for their long-haul needs?

If they had bought 747-800's I'd say it would be a political statement, however considering none were ordered and no US airline has a jumbo (all remaining 747's recently retired), I'd say it just doesn't suit their current plans.

thereality

Comhra wrote: »

Was the fact that no US airline bought it a political statement or did they just not see it as a good fit for their long-haul needs?

I imagine it was down to the fact, that demand for long haul soared and there was the demand to direct flights between 'smaller cities'. It made more sense for people to go A to B on a smaller plane, than A to B on an A380 and then B to C on a smaller aircraft.

I imagine Airbus did not expect the rise of the small regional airport. There is talk of a direct Dublin to Bangkok flight now and again. Who could have guessed that a few years ago?

trellheim

Depends on your economic model really

US airlines make a big hooha about government supported airlines are the only supports for the 380 ( telling that no US carrier bought the 747-8 for pax service )

2-engines are usually better fuel efficient

Couple that with slot-controlled airports ( LHR of course being the most obvious ) which limits the number of flights you can do, its easy to launch a lot of 777s from somewhere like Denver

EMirates are smack bang in the middle of the happy place for long haul travel as well, a lot of places are 7-10 hours away that a lot of young people want to go to.

billy few mates

Comhra wrote: »

The fact that no orders came from Delta, AA or United must have made it's total global success somewhat less than originally expected.

Was the fact that no US airline bought it a political statement or did they just not see it as a good fit for their long-haul needs?

Not a single A340 was bought by any American carrier and that aircraft is generally seen as a failure...

Fattes

billy few mates wrote: »

Not a single A340 was bought by any American carrier and that aircraft is generally seen as a failure...

That flying fuel tank with a few passangers sitting on top! The A340 is a very thirsty bird and never performed as it was advertised and sold.

HTCOne

billy few mates wrote: »

Not a single A340 was bought by any American carrier and that aircraft is generally seen as a failure...

Northwest were supposed to take delivery in the early 90s, but GW1 caused a big aviation recession and they nearly went to the wall, thus they cancelled their order and took used DC-10s instead.

The A340 programme overall was profitable, the A345/6 were not.

The A343 actually used less fuel than the MD-11 btw.

I don’t think anyone in the 80s could have predicted how successful / liberal ETOPS would become. Had the manufacturers known just how successful the A330 and 767/777 would be in proving engine reliability, the MD-11 would have 2 engines and the A340 wouldn’t exist.

Inquitus

HTCOne wrote: »

Northwest were supposed to take delivery in the early 90s, but GW1 caused a big aviation recession and they nearly went to the wall, thus they cancelled their order and took used DC-10s instead.

The A340 programme overall was profitable, the A345/6 were not.

The A343 actually used less fuel than the MD-11 btw.

I don’t think anyone in the 80s could have predicted how successful / liberal ETOPS would become. Had the manufacturers known just how successful the A330 and 767/777 would be in proving engine reliability, the MD-11 would have 2 engines and the A340 wouldn’t exist.

757's regularly cross the Atlantic and predate those planes by a decade, when did they get ETOPS for trans atlantic routes? That said there's no worse way to cross the Atlantic then on one of those these days!

L1011

Early 1990s. Initial engine options couldn't realistically go TATL without a stop in eastern Canada so it took the newer engines and winglets to open up the range they can do now (there has even been a recent winglet improvement adding another 50nm or so safe range, at a large hardware cost). Also, airlines didn't think anyone would use them for non-leisure travel!

Leisure carriers used them longhaul first, UK-Florida with a stop being a common one; then Continental started the revolution.

Inquitus

L1011 wrote: »

Early 1990s. Initial engine options couldn't realistically go TATL without a stop in eastern Canada so it took the newer engines and winglets to open up the range they can do now (there has even been a recent winglet improvement adding another 50nm or so safe range, at a large hardware cost). Also, airlines didn't think anyone would use them for non-leisure travel!

Leisure carriers used them longhaul first, UK-Florida with a stop being a common one; then Continental started the revolution.

Thanks, that said I'd rather go via somewhere else than fly American Airlines direct in the winter on those old 757's, truly a miserable way to fly

HTCOne

Inquitus wrote: »

757's regularly cross the Atlantic and predate those planes by a decade, when did they get ETOPS for trans atlantic routes? That said there's no worse way to cross the Atlantic then on one of those these days!

They didn’t start getting used on Trans Atlantic routes until well into their lifetime, remember the 767 and 757 were developed side by side and have a common type rating, 757 was the 727 replacement (ie domestic). They came out before deregulation, so it was all hub to hub flying in those days, hence all widebodies.

120 minute ETOPS was considered dodgy by many traditionalist when it first came through, 787s, 777s and A330s can get 330 minute ETOPS certification, and the A350 has 370 minute certification. Some progress

L1011

The reasons for the 757s power and endurance were US transcons and difficult US airports like LGA where it'd be difficult to get a plane that big out of at the time. That it made it TATL capable from the eastern seaboard was an accident at best

Boeing designed shorthaul craft for the domestic market then - it was so big compared to others, European carriers were still messing around with BAC/BAe designs and threatening what became the A320 (and using the A300 on busy routes); also Douglas had huge presence compared to Boeing with SK/KL etc.

Hotblack Desiato

Bit harsh to judge the 380 on a 20-year timeframe, IIRC plenty of Boeing products were not profitable in that timeframe. The 737 was only reasonably successful in its first 20 years, it's been a roaring success in the last 30.

The 340 was eclipsed by ETOPS but was a lovely aircraft to fly on. On our honeymoon we flew LHR - HKG on Cathay in business, the 340 was wonderfully smooth and quiet. The 330 to Oz, also in business, was quite a bit noisier.

L1011

Fattes wrote: »

That flying fuel tank with a few passangers sitting on top! The A340 is a very thirsty bird and never performed as it was advertised and sold.

The 345/346 aren't actually particularly bad on fuel, if any worse at all. The main problem is that there is immediately 2x the engine maintenance costs and even Rolls 'cheap' power by the hour plan has never fixed that

The 342/343 were reputed to only get airborne via the curvature of the earth :pac: and were dogs fuel consumption wise.

HTCOne

L1011 wrote: »

The 342/343 were reputed to only get airborne via the curvature of the earth :pac: and were dogs fuel consumption wise.

RR were supposed to develop the engine for the A342/A343, but they bailed out, forcing Airbus to fit the aircraft with 4 CFM hairdryers. But yes, the ROC on a the A340 is the worst of any heavy I’d deal with (except the A345, which is a rocket ship).

waxon-waxoff

I was on an Emirates A380 just over a week ago.

Here is my two cents worth:
It feels more spacious than a normal aircraft as the walls are more curved. I had a window seat and had to lean a long way to rest against the wall.
It takes a lot of runway to get airborne.
Its smooth and quiet.
The interior colour's remind me of a 1980's caravan, light wood and cream fabrics.
The movies and TV selection is very good, although you have to watch a lenghty ad for Dubai property or holidays before anything plays.
The food is very good.

smurfjed

and were dogs fuel consumption wise.

We operate a -250 (:)) it has a 22.5 hour range with a full cabin. (limited capacity)

Nonoperational

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

I was on an Emirates A380 just over a week ago.

Here is my two cents worth:
It feels more spacious than a normal aircraft as the walls are more curved. I had a window seat and had to lean a long way to rest against the wall.
It takes a lot of runway to get airborne.
Its smooth and quiet.
The interior colour's remind me of a 1980's caravan, light wood and cream fabrics.
The movies and TV selection is very good, although you have to watch a lenghty ad for Dubai property or holidays before anything plays.
The food is very good.

Flew it in business recently. Better hard product than their 777s by a considerable margin. The bar is enjoyable too.

Jude13

I would take (and do) the EK 777 over the A380. I find the foot box quite small on the 380.

BigMoose

I prefer the EK economy in the A380 to the 777 (my employer is tight and flies me everywhere economy...). The A380's are nice planes (nicer than 777s for sure) on any airline I've flown on one (BA, Emirates and Etihad)

trellheim

I would take (and do) the EI 777

the what now ?

Growler!!!

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

I was on an Emirates A380 just over a week ago.

Here is my two cents worth:
It feels more spacious than a normal aircraft as the walls are more curved. I had a window seat and had to lean a long way to rest against the wall.
It takes a lot of runway to get airborne.
Its smooth and quiet.
The interior colour's remind me of a 1980's caravan, light wood and cream fabrics.
The movies and TV selection is very good, although you have to watch a lenghty ad for Dubai property or holidays before anything plays.
The food is very good.

I forget if there are touch screens in economy, but further up front you can skip the ads by dragging the cursor forward or pressing fast forward on the handset and/or wifi enabled controller.

BigMoose

Yes, you can skip the annoying ads in economy - if not particularly accurately. I jump about 2 mins and hope I’ve not missed the start .

Kournikova

When compared to a 777 the A380 is immensely more comfy for me as a passenger, however I get the economic realities airlines are driven by nowadays. Though if this EK order gives the A380 another lease of life I'll certainly be happy.

Third_Echelon

Kournikova wrote: »

When compared to a 777 the A380 is immensely more comfy for me as a passenger, however I get the economic realities airlines are driven by nowadays. Though if this EK order gives the A380 another lease of life I'll certainly be happy.

Yeah, A380 is a lovely aircraft to fly on. So quiet in the cabin and feels more spacious. Would choose it every time if i could.