11 seats abreast

>>1082819
Good. It's well designed and the seats aren't particularly narrow. And the block of 5 seats in the middle is nothing new - MH used to have that in their 777s.

>>1083003

5 abreast would be great in euro planes so the family of four can include their designated refugee without having to exclude one of their own or without getting charged for racism

>>1082819
mmmmm....breast

>>1083003

Not too different from the window seat, still have to climb over 2 people.

With the window seat you don't have some chump on both sides of you tho.

>>1083016
And with a window seat you can sleep semi comfortably even on economy as long as you've got something to act as a pillow.

>>1082819
You're implying tons of airlines purchasing/purchased A380. But this option for 11-abreast existed ever since they start manufacturing this plane but currently there are still no airlines doing this. I think the amount of airlines ultimately opting for 11-ab would be less than 5.

>>1082819
No airline is going to buy this. Look at the trend of ETOPS aircraft, more people are buying twins then multi-jet aircraft. What routes are you going to fly this aircraft on? Also the airport has to be wide enough to fit this on.
>Its not going to fly with anyone

>>1083145
Airport is the least part of the probpen. Other than a few inner city airports like LGA or HND, most airports with enough demand is now already able to accommodate A380.
As for number of engines, that ultimately depend on how large an aircraft you're operating

>>1083151
There is just so much incorrect about this post.

>>1083112
Originally the option for 11 abreast seating relied on using narrower seats, which would've eroded the A380's desirability for passengers. The new configuration will solve that problem.

>>1083145
There are lots of very big cities where runway capacity is in short supply: London, Sydney, Tokyo, New York etc.

And most airlines have operational hubs with runways more than 3km long.

So it makes sense for those airlines to use A380s to fly from their hubs to the big cities with scarce runway capacity.

And the airport modifications are easy enough - you can expect them to be done on demand.

Having four very big engines (as the A380 does) makes it easier to keep the airflow through them subsonic, resulting in quieter operations. And while having just two engines usually makes economic sense, the huge number of passengers the A380 carries overrides that.

>>1082819
Well the A380 is fucked and this minor upgrade (which no airline even asked for) isn't going to save it. So I guess we don't have to worry about it.

>>1083210
Yeah who is going to buy these, Emirates and Singapore? Anyone else?

speaking from experience, 11 isn't that different from 9 (at least on long haul flights). you're gonna be fatigued and uncomfortable at any rate, and most people will concede anything wrt flying as long as it brings down ticket prices

>>1083236
ANA is getting 3 of them but unless you are travelling to Hawaii you don't need to worry.

>>1083236
Not Singapore. Maybe Emirates, but only maybe. Emirates was the only airline pushing for an A380neo and they did not seem excited at all about the A380plus.

>>1083255
ANA has 3 of the normal A380s on order. They have zero of the plus version on order.

>>1083239
Nailed it. Vast majority of people don't give much of a fuck about comfort if the ticket price is lower.

>>1083264
Had they (SQ, ANA) firm up details of interiors and other aspects of their yet to be taken A380? As otherwise we won't know what version they're taking

>>1083264
More efficient than existing A380s, yet just as comfortable.
Of course EK will buy them!

>>1083280
Wrong. The plus has exterior changes as well and Singapore and Emirates have not ordered any yet.

>>1083317
They flatly stated they wanted the neo and were not enthusiastic about the plus. Maybe they order some down the line, but it's not definite. The A380 program is toast. The incentive to buy a type that's going to be totally out of production in a few years is not high.

>>1083339
You mean winglets and etc.? It is not like when airline order aircrafts they would have firmed up these details i think?

>>1083006
/thread

they might as well start stacking us up in padded tubes.

>>1083341
Yes, they would be firmed up. No airlines have converted any orders yet either. And now airlines have leverage to try and extract lower prices for existing model.

>>1083339
EK may not be enthusiastic, but few things are more certain in the aviation industry.

The A380 program is far from toast. It's not going to go out of production any time soon. Its market, though small, will continue to grow.

It's the B747 program that's toast.

>>1083636
You are objectively wrong and have been proven as such for quite a while now. A380 orders have come to an absolute halt with no sign whatsoever of picking up, especially with used airframes hitting the secondary market. And if Emirates ends up ordering some plus models, they will simultaneously be flooding the secondary market with discounted airframes as well, further undercutting other new orders. It's telling that Emirates is the ONLY airline that wanted the neo and that not a single airline has expressed optimism about the program even with launch of the plus.

Airbus has vacant production slots in 2019 and they are already going to cut the production rate and will likely have to do so again within the next year. There are is evidence to suggest the program will recover. None.

>>1083636
>>1083641
And btw, the 747-8 program was significantly less burdensome on Boeing than the A380 was on Airbus. Everyone knows the 747 is on the way out and Boeing doesn't really pretend otherwise. The possible exception being on the freighter front, where UPS recently 14 with 14 more options. Not a lot, but nobody has any competition to the 747-8F and the freighter market it set to go on another upswing as cargo fleet renewals and expansions come along. Both the 280 and 747 are done in the medium term though.

>>1083504
Media seems to be saying EK is not offered to fir their outstanding orders with winglets nor refitting their current , although they seens to thibk they might be given the option if they order more

>>1082819
>11 abreast
might as well fuck my ass and stuff me in a sardine can senpai

File: Ȁ͚̺̺̮̝͙̘̞̅̍̄ͦͫͧͣ̐Y̗̗̳̖̿̿̐ͥ̋̇ͨͬY̟̟̗̪̓̊̄̊̓͆̽ͅ.jpg (191KB, 640x633px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 640x633px

>>1083006
ebinly meme'd
Now back to >>>/pol/

>>1083930
Tim Clark already said they're not going to order more unless other airlines do and unless Airbus will offer retrofits.

>>1084149
I mean, the report make it seems like Tim.Clark believed that if they order more then Airbus will offer retrofit

>>1084155
The overriding statement was that Emirates wouldn't purchase more if Airbus couldn't get a sufficient number of orders from other airlines. The whole retrofit issue was a secondary issue.

And it really doesn't look like other airlines are interested.

All the focus in Paris is on the 737 MAX/A320neo and the 787/A350.

In the next couple of years there will be more focus on the 777X (particularly given that Airbus has said they don't plan to stretch the A350 further) as that begins flight testing and enters into service, plus Boeing will continue to move along with the NMA.

>>1083202

The problem is how long you have to wait for the wake of an airliner as large as the A380 to dissipate so another jet can takeoff/land.

Once you take this into account you can get higher throughput from large twins.

And what you say about 4 engines makes zero sense. Every jet engine has subsonic air going through it, even supersonic jets.

>>1082819
Was that premium economy 2-3-4 configuration?? What fucking maximum autism is that???

>>1084177
The air in every jet is always subsonic at the point of combustion. But in some other parts of the engine it can be supersonic, especially at high power output.

AIUI the reason turbojets are so noisy is their supersonic exhaust.

I know the problem of wingtip vortices means you have to wait a few minutes for smaller aircraft to take off after large ones, but don't large twins produce the same problem? Where did you get the idea that it would negate the A380's capacity advantage?

>>1084216
That capacity advantage isn't something that airlines care about 99% of the time. Your evaluation of capacity as some kind of trump card is a gross oversimplification that we can see being rejected by the actual market in the real world.

>>1084220
They don't care about it much because right now either they have the runway slots or they don't. They'll are about it a lot more once the world's busiest runways are congestion charged.

On most routes, of course, it won't be an issue - but there are many high demand routes where it will be.

>>1084234
This is mathematically untrue. There are near as makes no difference zero routes where capacity couldn't be increased by simply upgrading to a larger twin engine aircraft. There is a reason that the short and long term strategic plans of most airlines are to stop using and stop buying the 747 and A380. They simply aren't needed and won't be needed in sufficient numbers any time in the foreseeable future.

>>1084296
When I say zero, I really mean the percentage of routes where the superjumbos *might* make sense for gate slot and capacity purposes is so low that you can't make a business case for a massive design and manufacturing effort just for them, which is exactly what the A380 and 747-8 programs tried to do.

>>1084298
Neither Airbus nor Boeing anticipated the GFC or most countries' Hooverite response to it which prevented demand from fully recovering. By then it was too late; the massive effort had already been made.

Many country pairs don't have open skies arrangements, so gate slots and runway capacity aren't the only reasons why more twin engine aircraft aren't always the solution. Of course the routes where A380s are the best option are a very low percentage of the total, but that's OK: A380s are only a small proportion of the fleet of each airline that operates them (apart from EK of course.)

Meanwhile passenger numbers are growing...

>>1084177
As for takeoff/land, that make virtually no difference, you takeoff/land, cleared from runway,and then another aircraft follow. Sometimes it would need to use more gate time but with airports infrastructure catching up it seems to be lesser a problem now.

>>1084321
You still haven't made an actual case. Airlines, the ones who by definition understand their route capacity needs best, are rejecting superjumbos.

>>1084329
Not him but I think for each individual airline company, if their hub are not slot controlled, then there are actually quite limited amount of routes that they would be limited in expansion due to slot issue and thus not worth introducing another fleet type as things currently stand, and for airlines with their hub being slot controlled, the more viable solution as of now would be upgauging smaller plane forst to free up slot pairs. As such, they also won't need larger aircrafts for now. But when slot controlled aircraft being more and more common and people are more resistance against aorpprt expansion, it's going.to be needed someday soon in the future

>>1084393
It won't be anytime soon. Not to mention when you're talking about using superjumbos, you need special gates to handle them if you don't want dwell time to be off the charts. Those require larger distances between them, reducing the total number of gates over a given stretch.

The reality is, we're not going to see superjumbos be in favor with airlines anytime even remotely soon. What we'll continue to see is increased interest in "mini-jumbos" (787, A350, 777) and the increased use of long thin services to secondary airports in major markets.

I don't know why it's even slightly controversial to say the 747 and A380 are fucked, because it's not.

>>1084396
Like for example, United is retiring all of their 747s, many of which are based out of SFO. They are being replaced with 777s and reworked scheduling to optimize capacity. SFO has nowhere to expand beyond the final terminal (T1) remodel going on right now. But because of the 787, long haul routes to existing and new markets from the Bay Area from OAK and SJC have become feasible.

The "797" might contribute to that trend as well.

>>1084396
>>1084398
- Well, one of the reason why A380 is unpopular amonv airlines, is because it don't have a high cost per seat advantage over those twin jets, as commented by LH president some while ago.
- I thought nowadays most of the busiest airport already have the gate to handle A380
- When airlines replaced 747 with similar sized 777, it does not represent the marlet of VLA doed, instead it represent the situarion that those old unoptimized design cannot match the current need by airlines. I think the performance of 777-9 will tell us whether the lack of order for 748 and 380 is due to the market size, or the performance and efficiency of both aircrafts
- While long thin route to OAK and SJC are feasible, I don't think there are actually notable amouny of 787 flown into OAK/SJC.

>>1084399
> Well, one of the reason why A380 is unpopular amonv airlines, is because it don't have a high cost per seat advantage over those twin jets, as commented by LH president some while ago.
And that's in a low fuel cost environment. When jet fuel costs go back up, it is even more disadvantaged.

> I thought nowadays most of the busiest airport already have the gate to handle A380
They do the vast majority of even major international airports only have a handful of gates that can handle them.

> When airlines replaced 747 with similar sized 777, it does not represent the marlet of VLA doed, instead it represent the situarion that those old unoptimized design cannot match the current need by airlines. I think the performance of 777-9 will tell us whether the lack of order for 748 and 380 is due to the market size, or the performance and efficiency of both aircrafts
The 777X will over quite a lot of capacity and do so much more efficient in terms of seat-mile costs than the 747 or A380, all without the need for specialized gates.

> While long thin route to OAK and SJC are feasible, I don't think there are actually notable amouny of 787 flown into OAK/SJC.
For each only having ~10 million annual passengers, they get a relatively large number (and increasing) of 787 flights. Oakland is where Norwegian long haul continues to expand plus a London 787 flight for BA. And SJC a 787 BA flight plus a Tokyo and a few China flights.

>>1084414
yeah, that's why I personally think the problem of A380 is not the market isn't there, but Airbus didn't do it right.
I think the situation with regard to A380Plus is to give it back its slight efficiency advantage over 777X, although that wouldn't be enough to turn 777X customers around

>>1084417
There's no evidence that the A380plus would be more efficient than the 777X.

1) because neither of those versions of the aircraft have flown

2) The current 777 already has a seat-mile-cost advantage, so why wouldn't a new, more efficient version (i.e. 777X compared to 777) of it get efficiency gains at least the size of what the A380plus would give over the A380?

>>1084430
- Nah, the statement was not current 777 have seat mile cost advantage, but that the seat mile cost is comparable to A380 while being smaller iirc
- The main efficiency gain the A380 is getting via plus is cabin densification while 777 cabin have already densified

>>1084436
Okay, I see what you're saying.

On existing A380s, densification is possible to some degree. One of the "biggest" features of the plus is a resigned staircase to allow for seats to be fit on the plane without changing the pitch. But the Airline that would benefit from that far more than any other, Emirates, explicitly rejected the new staircase design, preferring to keep their larger and grander staircase for branding purposes.

File: minimum seperation.png (87KB, 929x683px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 929x683px

>>1084216
>Where did you get the idea that it would negate the A380's capacity advantage?

Because the A380 produces a much stronger wake than any other airliner, and consequently requires a much larger separation than anything else

>>1084323

It absolutely does

File: wake2.jpg (75KB, 419x622px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 419x622px

>>1084445

And here is a general chart although its outdated a bit.

This is one of the primary issues that has been preventing the A380 from wide adoption. What matters is how many pax per hour can be moved, and the longer separation times from the A380 fucks this up despite the large number of pax it can carry.

>>1084446
I thought there's an recent revision that cut the time gap?

>>1084443
Well, that's EK being 380 airline...

>>1084449
>I thought there's an recent revision that cut the time gap?

Not sure, I thought with that private jet that hit an A380s wake recently they were looking at increasing the distance/time

>>1084458
The incident was it passing through after/below the A380 on air though

>>1084445
>>1084446
A 2 minute separation between an A380 and a succeeding heavy aircraft doesn't seem that bad.

What's the required separation between two heavy aircraft? What about two A380s?

I presume the figure for two medium aircraft is still 1 minute, as it was the time I watched them take off at LHR a few years back. When I did, there was a gap of over four minutes after a B747 took off - though that may have been because there were no other aircraft waiting, as Heathrow, like Sydney, has a politically imposed cap on the number of air traffic movements.

Is any extra separation required for an aircraft landing on a runway after an A380 takes off?

File: fkjdsflksjlkfs.png (192KB, 1710x664px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1710x664px

>>1084499

A380 following an A380 needs to additional separation beyond normal, but pretty much everything else is roughly 50% more.

This is a British chart that shows how their standards are a bit different than ICAO

File: PanAm 747 'Economy Class' 1960s.jpg (75KB, 856x657px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 856x657px

The good ol' days of economic air travel.

>>1086435
a Premium Economy ticket nowadays is probably cheaper than this after adjusted to inflation and also more comfortable tha this.

>>1086487

>more comfortable

You must be special.

>>1086512
Your pic is 8-abreast. Most 747 with Premium Economy config would be in 2-4-2. 2-4-2 or 3-3-3? You can see the legroom there too which is definitely less than premium economy's

>>1086515
The pic layout is 2-4-3.

No 747 uses a 2-4-2 Premium Economy setup. They use 3-4-3 with a larger pitch than economy.

>>1086536
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Lufthansa/Lufthansa_Boeing_747_8_V3.php
What are these

>>1086542
That's surprising to me.

>>1086544
They are currently the largest 748 operators, and their 744 fleet also configure those seats as such, and the current largest 744 operator, BA, also arrange those premium economy in the same way. Other large airlines like Qantas do the same too.

>>1082819

WOW I LOVE BEING PACKED IN LIKE SARDINES

THANKS AIRBUS™

>>1086547
11 across in a 380 isn't packed in like sardines.
10 across in a 777 is tighter, but it's still not sardine tight.
9 across in a 787 is packed in like sardines.

>>1083636
All 4 engine aircraft are dying like the 3 engine aircraft's did, the majority of aircraft orders by now of 2017 are for twin engines. Because they are more fuel efficient, and airlines have no need for high capacity aircraft when far more fuel efficient aircraft such as 777,787,a350,a330 exist. They can carry the same amount of passengers minus the richfags section. The a380 plus and 747-8 are desperate cries to continue to 4 engine aircraft production.

>>1087088
Well, better than 8 abreast 767

>>1087089
Well, not quite
>An-124
>C130J
>C17
>Y-20
>Kawasaki P-1P-1
>DHC-7
>A400M
>An-70
they still have their niche

>>1087104
Did anyone actually try that?

>>1087167
Fron what I gathered
- Skymark, before they tried to rebrand
- Britannia>Thomson Airways
- Ukraine International
- TUI Belgium (one of their's)
- UTair
- EuroAtlantic Airways (some of their's)

>>1084445
There was an incident a few months ago where a Challenger passing underneath an area an A380 had flown over some minutes before was written off by damage caused by the wake.

>>1087107
Yeah primarily as cargo aircraft...

>>1087195
Unlike tris that seems like once MD11s are gone and if Aerion did not succeed then there'll be only Falcon