A380 with 1000 seats
wiede...@googlemail.com
Small notice in the local paper here:
LH ( Deutsche Lufthansa) and AF ( Air France ) would be interested
in an A380 version seating 1000 PAX.
G!
wid
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
mt...@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
JF Mezei
> Hi,
> LH ( Deutsche Lufthansa) and AF ( Air France ) would be interested
> in an A380 version seating 1000 PAX.
I had also heard some rumour for some larger 380. This is about 145 more
pax than the current 855 380-800 aircraft, or 8 extra rows in coach (or
roughly 6.5 metres longer). This is something the 380 can do and still
be within the 80*80m "box".
My guess though is that they are not interested in 1000 passengers, but
rather in having more room for business/first *and* still have a fair
size coach section.
Much has been said about the 380 being heavy in a per passenger basis.
Would it be correct to state that a stretched 380 would make the weight
per passenger better because core structures like the wingbox would then
be be divided amongst more passengers ? Or would Airbus find that it
would need to add a fair amount of weight to the structures to sustain
the bigger aircraft ?
.
wiede...@googlemail.com
> wiederl...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> > LH ( Deutsche Lufthansa) and AF ( Air France ) would be interested
> > in an A380 version seating 1000 PAX.
>
> I had also heard some rumour for some larger 380. This is about 145 more
> pax than the current 855 380-800 aircraft, or 8 extra rows in coach (or
> roughly 6.5 metres longer). This is something the 380 can do and still
> be within the 80*80m "box".
>
> My guess though is that they are not interested in 1000 passengers, but
> rather in having more room for business/first *and* still have a fair
> size coach section.
1000 PAX was explicitly mentioned. not more "waist space".
And it would be one step further than the projected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Airbus_A380-900
seating 650 .. 900
The german entry on the same topic has some more info:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Airbus_A380-900
babelfish should give a reasonable translation
seating there is said to be up to 963 PAX over 14200km
first tentative deliveries in 2015.
>
> Much has been said about the 380 being heavy in a per passenger basis.
> Would it be correct to state that a stretched 380 would make the weight
> per passenger better because core structures like the wingbox would then
> be be divided amongst more passengers ? Or would Airbus find that it
> would need to add a fair amount of weight to the structures to sustain
> the bigger aircraft ?
The current incarnation of the A380 is supposed to have some leeway
for growing (and has comonality with the A380F) afaik. ( I haven't
followed
the on and off of building the freighter )
wid
matt weber
>> in an A380 version seating 1000 PAX.
>I had also heard some rumour for some larger 380. This is about 145 more
>pax than the current 855 380-800 aircraft, or 8 extra rows in coach (or
>roughly 6.5 metres longer). This is something the 380 can do and still
>be within the 80*80m "box".
>My guess though is that they are not interested in 1000 passengers, but
>rather in having more room for business/first *and* still have a fair
>size coach section.
>Much has been said about the 380 being heavy in a per passenger basis.
>Would it be correct to state that a stretched 380 would make the weight
>per passenger better because core structures like the wingbox would then
>be be divided amongst more passengers ? Or would Airbus find that it
>would need to add a fair amount of weight to the structures to sustain
Generally stretches don't add a great deal of weight, and shrinks
don't remove much weight either
For example:
767-200ER EW=187,000 pounds
767-300ER EW=200,000 pounds
About 20% more pax capacity for about 7% more EW
757-200 EW= 130,000 pounds
757-300 EW= 142,000 pounds
About 20% more pax capacity for about 9% more EW
At the other end
A340-600 EW 376,000
A340-500 EW 392,000 pounds
About 4% lower weight about 20% less pax capacity
A320 EW 93,000 pounds
A319 EW 89.000 pounds
A318 EW 86,000 pounds
about 4% lower weight for about 20% less pax capacity
737-700 EW 84,000 pounds
737-600 EW 82,000 pounds
About 2.5% lower weight, for 15% fewer pax.
747-100 EW 376,000 pounds
747-SP EW 325,000 pounds
about 15% lower weight, and at least the QF version had about 30% fewer pax.
767-200ER in QF service originally had more seats than the 747-38SP!
There are two real issues in a 1000 seat A380. First it is going to
take a huge range hit. When you work the numbers, it becomes clear
why the QF A380 only has 450 seats. For the LAX-SYD mission, that is
about all it can carry.
The secondary problem is the much shorter range implies more of a
medium range aircraft, which also implies a higher cycle rate, which
requires further derating of certain components to get reasonable
life. The 747-400's that JAL operates in short range service have
enormous de-rates in MGTOW and MLW. They also get moved to long haul
service before the cycle numbers get too high, so ultimately the mix
of long haul and short haul service will cause the airframe to run
out of cycles and airframe life at about the same time.
My own belief is that the real future for the A380 lies in an A370.
Essentially a 3500nm range Twin powered by a uprated version of the
GE90, something around 125,000 pounds thrust per engine. The reduced
range, and simplifications you get from getting rid of two engines
should reduce the required MGTOW by about 200,000 pounds. Such an
aircraft could fly from the East Coast to much of Europe, and
extensively within Europe and within Asia.