Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4830897/

Topic: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ATLflyer
Posted 2010-06-05 17:49:51 and read 44985 times.

The largest airlines in the world are in the United States, so why aren't any of the US carriers interested in a large aircraft like the A380/747-8 anymore? What makes the A380 attractive to airlines such as Singapore, Emirates, Qantas, Air France or Lufthansa but not United or Delta?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: PGNCS
Posted 2010-06-05 17:51:20 and read 45017 times.

Because they believe that other aircraft will be more profitable for them.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ERJ170
Posted 2010-06-05 17:52:31 and read 44995 times.

Quoting ATLflyer (Thread starter):
What makes the A380 attractive to airlines such as Singapore, Emirates, Qantas, Air France or Lufthansa but not United or Delta?

My guess would be 1-2 hubs vs 4-6 hubs. All the airlines you mentioned have only 1 or 2 hubs and thus funnel their passengers more efficiently on VLA. US airlines, in contrast, average about 4 hubs and thus don't need quite as large an aircraft to move passengers..

But that's just my guess.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: TK787
Posted 2010-06-05 18:24:35 and read 44860 times.

I don't remember the last time I was on a twin aisle on a domestic flight, even 757s are becoming a thing of the past. Another thing I realize, I actually like to get on a plane and get off a plane less than 1/2 hour since there are only 160 people on these planes.
In short, smaller planes from point to point and frequency is more important when it comes US airlines.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: 777STL
Posted 2010-06-05 18:52:42 and read 44706 times.

Frequency over size. Of the two US pax 744 operators, UA/CO is replacing the 744 with the 350-1000 and DL has yet to announce its plans for 744 replacement, though it seems they've committed to the 744 for the near to mid term.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: dl767captain
Posted 2010-06-05 19:24:04 and read 44500 times.

I would say it's for a few reasons. Qantas, British airways, air France, singapore etc don't exactly have a lot of domestic ground to cover compared to the US. The US airlines serves all of the US which greatly prefer frequency. Qantas for example depend on long haul routes which is why they need planes like the A380. 772s and 787s will work fine for the hub flights to international flights. US airlines also have a lot of competition with each other compared to someone like British Airways. US customers simply want more frequency and nonstop flights than the A380 can provide

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: kanban
Posted 2010-06-05 19:46:31 and read 44361 times.

If you have two airlines serving the same set of city pairs and one provides hourly departures on a 737 and the other provides one flight every 4 to 5 hours on an A380 and you were more interested in convenience and connectivity than what plane you were on, which would you pick.... ?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: 2175301
Posted 2010-06-05 20:30:05 and read 44060 times.

I actually believe that 10 - 20 A380s (or 748i's) could be effectively used within the US - principally between major East Cost and West Coast cities (New York - Los Angeles, etc).

However, I do not see the economics of how you would set it up given the long lead time and uncertainty of delivery of the planes at this point.

I also believe that at some point there will be an oversupply of A380's and someone within the US will be able to quickly pick some up at more reasonable prices. Assuming that Airbus gets production up to 24 per year - that point will not start to develop until 3-4 years away from now - and it may be 5-6 years from now before such planes are available.

Note that I have long held that the A380 fills a limited niche market - and once you get in the 75-100 planes in service that it will become more difficult to find effective routes to use them on (I'm not looking to start a debate on that here - just stating my opinion and the reason I believe there will be planes available in 5-6 years that someone could quickly acquire and put into service within the US).

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UAL747
Posted 2010-06-05 20:43:24 and read 43962 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 10):
I actually believe that 10 - 20 A380s (or 748i's) could be effectively used within the US - principally between major East Cost and West Coast cities (New York - Los Angeles, etc).

Considering that that majority of flights between east and west coast cities are operated with narrowbody aircraft, I cannot see how you can make that argument.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 10):
I also believe that at some point there will be an oversupply of A380's and someone within the US will be able to quickly pick some up at more reasonable prices. Assuming that Airbus gets production up to 24 per year - that point will not start to develop until 3-4 years away from now - and it may be 5-6 years from now before such planes are available

And again, if United, Delta, Contiental, American, heck even US were in need of something like the capacity of the A380, they could STILL afford to buy them new. Airbus probably would make the first US carrier to purchase one a VERY sweet deal. It's not about the cost of the plane. IF it were about cost, they wouldn't be buying 777's, 787's, and A330's either.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: KennyK
Posted 2010-06-05 23:06:33 and read 42359 times.

OK, so it would seem from a domestic point single aisle aircraft are king in the US and small/medium twins are king for international flights. Witness the slow take up of the 77W by US airlines. What about long distance international flights. US to Australia, Europe, Japan, to name but a few where in the future the 77W/351 could be replaced by higher capacity 380s. LHR and Hong Kong are tipped to be two of the busiest A380 airports served by numerous A380 operating airlines. So maybe a small number might find a role serving slot constrained or major airports LHR being the most obvious answer. I don't see massive orders maybe single figures, or is it just not worth operating a small fleet..... time tells all.

I can now see from a US and Boeing perspective why the 787 is so important. As for the rest of the world I see the 787/350 being heavily supported on key trunk routes by the A380. It would take a major change in traffic patterns in the US for the A380 to ever get a domestic role, never ever like the 747 once had. So to see an A380 in the US I guess you will have to look towards Emirates, Air France, Singapore Airlines, Qantas and soon Lufthansa, later to be followed by Korean and China Southern then BA, Virgin, Malaysia, Thai, Qatar, Etihad, Kingfisher and others.....

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Danny
Posted 2010-06-05 23:21:10 and read 42213 times.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 1):
Because they believe that other aircraft will be more profitable for them.

Looking at financial results of US majors over last decade their beliefs as to profitability of aircraft must be wrong.  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: platinumfoota
Posted 2010-06-05 23:26:59 and read 42130 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 6):
If you have two airlines serving the same set of city pairs and one provides hourly departures on a 737 and the other provides one flight every 4 to 5 hours on an A380 and you were more interested in convenience and connectivity than what plane you were on, which would you pick.... ?

Convenience over plane type?    Never!!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-06-05 23:37:23 and read 41995 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I actually believe that 10 - 20 A380s (or 748i's) could be effectively used within the US - principally between major East Cost and West Coast cities (New York - Los Angeles, etc).

I don't, and any carrier that decides to operate such aircraft would be at a competitive disadvantage.

The market(consumers) likes frequency, and airline operating such large aircraft would either have to reduce frequencies if they wish to maintain overall market seat capacity, which would make their less frequent flights less attractive amongst peers and lead to discounting to fill the massive seat count, or if the carrier tried to maintain frequency they would flood the market with seats which itself obviously would drive down fares due need for heavy discounting.

Baring some artificial airport or slot limitation, the days of large domestic widebodies have come and gone and the industry has let economics drive the focus towards satisfying consumer needs in schedule variety.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: pylon101
Posted 2010-06-06 00:05:55 and read 41681 times.

Frequency over capacity, point-to-point concept - we all used to hear this for years.
As a result an average aircraft in use on domestic routes in US is smaller than 737-700.

An interesting observation: most a.netters prefer to state that the present system is optimized for US traffic, deregulation rules of game.
In general most guys here don't see (or don't wish to see) prospects 10-20 years from now.

1. The existing system is extremely expensive. To make flying so many smaller aircraft on the biggest civil aviation market in the world cost a lot.
2. The immediate result we all witness: madly congested airports and absence of service as a such (service in the States is basically a machine to make all those small a/c back to the air).
One (like me) who lived in US and used to travel in the US a lot should be ready to be inside an airplane for 30-40 minutes while waiting for take-off. Sometimes it needs taking tranqilizers to fight claustophobic panics.
3. I used to work with French. Many people residing farther from Paris area don't fly to hubs: they use trains or cars to reach Paris or Frankfurt to fly from there.
American distances and lack of trains make the present system seemingly non-alternative.
The regional operators of big airlines, gathering people from small places, are immense burden - as tickets are based on hub-hub fares. Say, Delta flight DCA-JFK-SVO practically the same as JFK-SVO.

Still this economic model does work. How long will it be able to function? I have no idea.
But to state that the present system is good and will not be changing appears to be wrong.
I can only guess that the system is already pushing its limits, in terms of congestion, terribly low pilot salaries, etc.

I am sure it will change. And I see near future with less frequency, larger planes, including A-380, higher fares.
I would not be surprised if we see a kind of A-380D version hopping IAD-EWR-BOS.

By the way it relates to some EU routes, like Madrid-Barcelona, the most intensive route of the last year.

I would like to see a broader vision on this forum rather than saying again and again: We prefer frequency over capacity, we love to fly 4 hours in CRJ - we enjoy it 

Let us try to look out of the box.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-06-06 00:48:17 and read 41183 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I actually believe that 10 - 20 A380s (or 748i's) could be effectively used within the US - principally between major East Cost and West Coast cities (New York - Los Angeles, etc).

The A380 wasn't designed for that type of short-haul domestic work, and I'll almost guarantee that if a US carrier ever does order A380's, that's not how they're deployed.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
The market(consumers) likes frequency, and airline operating such large aircraft would either have to reduce frequencies if they wish to maintain overall market seat capacity

It's probably important to distinguish between domestic flights, long-haul flights, and very long-haul flights when making comments such as these.
They all have their own particular characteristics.

Flying LAX-ATL is a different kettle of fish to flying LAX-SYD for example.
And as distance increases, the advantage of frequency almost certainly decreases.

But there are almost certainly a number of pre-requisites that need to occur to make this happen, such as the consolidation we are now seeing - the US carriers need to get their houses in order following the bloodbath of recent years.
But in years to come, it's difficult to see how routes into the US which are now becoming served by other carriers A380's couldn't also support ones operated by US carriers....

Rgds

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: XaraB
Posted 2010-06-06 00:59:52 and read 41002 times.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 13):

I agree.

Assuming conservative growth in the air travel market, even more airports and airways in the US will become congested to the point of service "breakdown", as in delays more common than on-time departures, etc. Sooner or later, one of the US airlines will have to take the plunge and stop adding frequencies when wanting to grow, and upgauging equipment instead. There is definitely not a first-mover advantage here, and the first airline to do so will probably bleed badly until the others follow suit, and the American public changes its hewn-in-stone travel preferences.

A natural starting point for deploying bigger planes would be international departures, particularly longer routes. We are slowly seeing a tendency for US carriers to use the 777. An eventual 777NG stretch will probably slowly gain some orders as well, and then maybe the 748i. Unless a huge P2P market suddenly opens between a particular US city and a particular foreign city far away, and that particular foreign city is NOT the hub of an A380 airline, I don't see the A380 flying American colours in the next 20 years.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 01:36:15 and read 40300 times.

I think the current extensive VLA operations by US carriers will be continued, growing with the booming Asian markets. No huge numbers maybe 40-70 in the next 20 years from the big US pacific hubs LAX, SFO, DTW, Chicago and New York. No revolutions. More evolutionairy growth.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2010-06-06 02:01:19 and read 39810 times.

Quoting ATLflyer (Thread starter):
The largest airlines in the world are in the United States, so why aren't any of the US carriers interested in a large aircraft like the A380/747-8 anymore? What makes the A380 attractive to airlines such as Singapore, Emirates, Qantas, Air France or Lufthansa but not United or Delta?

Because:

1. US carriers are huge only because they operate like the domestic bus or train companies in other countries. Most other countries rely on other modes of transport to ferry a sizeable chunk of their domestic traffic, while airlines tend to focus on long-haul and international routes, which are naturally smaller in market size.

2. Since US airlines run like the local bus company, shorter, higher frequency routes are preferred.

3. The population density in the US is not as high as, say, Japan, where B747s are used even on short domestic flights.

4. The domestic aviation landscape is typically far less constrained by regulations, so issues like frequency and capacity regulations and slot restrictions are less of an issue. One of the A380's biggest benefit is to circumvent slot restricted airports, which is not a major issue is just about any US airport.

The issue is less to do with the A380's capacity or capabilities than any other of above issues. Note that the B747 fleet amongst US carriers are not that large in comparison to other airlines either, despite them being much larger in terms of total passengers carried, the sole exception being Pan Am.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: WAC
Posted 2010-06-06 02:39:57 and read 39217 times.

I think the reason why we have not seen an order by any US airline so far are may be due to that a lot of them were in adminstration between 2000-2006/7. they have only merged from chapter 11. so they were not exactly in a financial or operational position to order or operate the a380.
domesitically the a380 can only really operate viably in one country-china. the USA market is to heavily dependent on multiple hub-spoke network and point to point services. the liberalisation of the aviation market within the US shifted the economics of the aviation market to more competition and higher frequencies.
as for international services maybe UA and DL could operate the 747-8/A380 but again I think US carriers position themselves differently fromother continent's. just look at the operations of DL compared to AF in the joint venture. DL's position is fairly focused on operating small/niche markets to and from USA-EU (PHL-CDG) or high frequency between major hubs (JFK_LHR) using smaller aircrafts, while AF is about high capacity between big markets. this once again can be seen in comparision with any US carriers with an EME/Asian carriers with operations between each other markets.
So really it is about economics of the domestic market and combined with international operations and positioning.
but i could see either UA or DL ordering some of these aircrafts for niche markets.
P.S. DL actually do operate a A380 strictly speaking due to the JV with AF. i.e CDG-JFK-CDG. they just don'town it-yet.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 02:43:54 and read 39157 times.

The capasity growth of the A380 compared to the 747-400 about 35%. In the 25 years between them longhaul travel trippled, fuel prices too, airlines consolidated, global alliances became standard and hubs became restricted.

I do not see game changing revolutionairy developments that will make US carriers being excluded from these market stearing developments. So when the current VLA come up for replacement I do not see a reason to reduce capasity dramatically on hard fought Asian routes.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-06 03:20:06 and read 38546 times.

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
Qantas, British airways, air France, singapore etc don't exactly have a lot of domestic ground to cover compared to the US.

Have you checked the map of Australia lately? QF does "have a lot of domestic ground to cover".

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
US customers simply want more frequency and nonstop flights than the A380 can provide

A.net myth # 356: "US customers prefer more frequency and non-stop flights." Apparently, people in the rest of the world have so much spare time in their hands that they are perfectly happy with a flight per day and endless connections... Now, of course, in the next thread somebody will say "US customers prefer low price over anything else". And we will all say "amen" too.

Quoting Danny (Reply 10):
Looking at financial results of US majors over last decade their beliefs as to profitability of aircraft must be wrong.

Exactly! Apparently, US airlines are giving their customers "what they want": frequent, non-stop flights, and yet they are losing their shirts in the process. I can't imagine what would happen if they gave their customers something different from what they want...

[Edited 2010-06-06 03:27:09]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 03:42:49 and read 38197 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
A.net myth # 356

#355 was the major international airlines can only need A380s on a few niche city pairs, max 10-12 aircraft year round. It becomes a risk when demand is lower while a twin will always be full. This one vanished in the string of follow up orders of a few yrs back.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Arniepie
Posted 2010-06-06 03:48:32 and read 38117 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
Exactly! Apparently, US airlines are giving their customers "what they want": frequent, non-stop flights, and yet they are losing their shirts in the process. I can't imagine what would happen if they gave their customers something different from what they want...

I'm by no means an expert on the matter but I really wonder how important frequency really is for the US aviation potential passenger.
Even among frequent fliers (usually professionals) , price is usually pretty much the determining factor, only on relative few occasions is price of secondary importance I believe.

Even Southwest or B6 rely heavily on hub and spoke to get the passengers where they want usually including one or more changeovers.

I'm willing to bet that any airliner investing in a couple of relative high density wide-bodies (77W-440 seats, 748-500 seats or 380-700 seats) in a 2 class configuration operating between the really heavy longer routs within the US operating on a lower frequency could make an absolute killing with the ability to undercut prices due to much lower overhead costs and a continuously high fuel price, something much less important 2 decedes ago.
Eg, NYC-LAX 5 times daily 2 in the morning, 2 in the evening and 1 between 12.00h and 17.00h ).

Everybody immediately assumes that this wouldn't work in the US market but nobody ever really tried it as far as I know in the last 10-20 years, maybe an interesting experiment for DL or UA or maybe even VX with some of the planes that are currently stored and easily could be put to good use maybe even starting a new trend withing the US.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2010-06-06 04:13:16 and read 37629 times.

Another thought on why the U.S. system is as it is, is too much competition due to Chapter 11.

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is one of the most capitalistic unfriendly policies I've ever seen.

One of the necessary conditions for an economy to prosper is that to the victors go the spoils and the weak will fail.

Chapter 11 allows weak poorly managed companies to survive, emerging with a lower cost structure(and usually the same bad management), forcing pricing down and causing the previously strong Airline (or company in other industries - Just like the domestic Auto Industry - they should have let GM or Chrysler fail - it was unfair to Ford to allow them to survive), to have to cut pricing as well, usually forcing them into Chapter 11 as well.

Consequently the industry is not nearly as profitable as it should be, so Airlines don't have the Capital to maximize efficiency by upsizing, and are forced to compete on Frequency(convenience). They don't care it's unprofitable, they are just trying to build market share with a mistaken belief they will eventually drive there competition into the ground, when they can finally raise prices. Unfortunately Chapter 11 doesn't allow this as too often a company will go through it, shed there debts and find a sucker with enough capital to allow them to continue.

If you were running an airline in isolation(or with less competition) in the U.S. airplane size between hubs would of course be much larger, just like it was pre-deregulation and the common use of Chapter 11.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: 2175301
Posted 2010-06-06 04:14:39 and read 37592 times.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 22):
I'm willing to bet that any airliner investing in a couple of relative high density wide-bodies (77W-440 seats, 748-500 seats or 380-700 seats) in a 2 class configuration operating between the really heavy longer routs within the US operating on a lower frequency could make an absolute killing with the ability to undercut prices due to much lower overhead costs and a continuously high fuel price, something much less important 2 decedes ago.
Eg, NYC-LAX 5 times daily 2 in the morning, 2 in the evening and 1 between 12.00h and 17.00h ).

Everybody immediately assumes that this wouldn't work in the US market but nobody ever really tried it as far as I know in the last 10-20 years, maybe an interesting experiment for DL or UA or maybe even VX with some of the planes that are currently stored and easily could be put to good use maybe even starting a new trend withing the US.

That is precisely the concept that I was criticized on above. I disagree that "anyone" can do it - it will take the right kind of airline to pull it off - an airline that people trust or that has a feeder network (or both). I actually think Southwest could do so; but that would require them to admit a 2nd aircraft type and accept longer turnarounds for them.

I do see an advantage of using the A380 for this kind of operation. 748i would be next. It might be doable with a 744... but I don't see Southwest doing anything like this with older used equipment. If Southwest were to go this route - I believe it would be with either new or at least recent production airframes (almost new).

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-06-06 04:32:13 and read 37872 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 24):
That is precisely the concept that I was criticized on above.

If that was me, I'll apologise for coming across as "critical". I was merely expressing a point of view, which might be no more valid than yours.
I don't think I'm alone in thinking "US domestic" isn't the first obvious choice of use for an A380, though..

Of course, I'd be delighted if you turned out to be right and I was wrong....   

Rgds

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: 2175301
Posted 2010-06-06 04:39:13 and read 37664 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
#355 was the major international airlines can only need A380s on a few niche city pairs, max 10-12 aircraft year round. It becomes a risk when demand is lower while a twin will always be full. This one vanished in the string of follow up orders of a few yrs back.

But did it? I don't recall anyone stating that their was only "a few" city pairs. Their are a number of us who feel that the number of city pairs are limited - and that once they fill up that the demand for the A380 will drop like a rock.

If I reconstruct my thoughts from a few years ago when I first looked at this; I guess I was thinking in the range of 25 - 30 city pairs where an A380 could really be effectively used. Frequency ranges from 1 trip a day in each direction to city pairs served by 4- 6 per day in each direction.

There would also be perhaps a dozen or so other locations that were essentially seasonal.

Others argue for a continuously expanding market because CASM will always win out (and it seems to me that these people believe this regardless if the planes fill up or not - and a smaller plane will financially beat the pants of a partially loaded A380 or 748i).

The thing is that we will not know how this all plays out until all of the initially identified major city pairs start seeing routine A380 service. My estimates are that this will take between 75 and 100 A380's in service before airlines start finding it more difficult to effectively use them. Others feel that my numbers are on the low end - and I have seen arguments that say's between 100 and 200.

I also see a limited market for the 748i - with part of that being some airports that will not convert to properly handle the A380 (perhaps 10 - 20 airports). The 748F has a great future.

Anyway, we will have to wait to see what really happens. In the meantime, I do believe that there is a use for the A380 within the US between certain city pairs. Not sure how we would get their given the current economics of the existing airlines - but I do see a realistic and valid use of them.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 04:53:45 and read 37979 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 26):
But did it? I don't recall anyone stating that their was only "a few" city pairs. Their are a number of us who feel that the number of city pairs are limited - and that once they fill up that the demand for the A380 will drop like a rock.

If a 747 flies from DTW to NRT, only a very small percentage of the passengers wants to go from DTW to NRT.

It's serves different markets.

1. From DTW to NRT Vice-versa
2. From somewhere in the US to NRT
3. From somewhere in Asia to DTW
4. From somewhere in the USA to somewhere in Asia Vice-versa

All of these passenger categories sit in the same VLA's enjoying countless network frequencies and low prices in comparison to point to point flights. That's how UA/CO and Delta/NWA work.

http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1022,00.html

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-06-06 05:11:25 and read 37586 times.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 13):
I am sure it will change. And I see near future with less frequency, larger planes, including A-380, higher fares.
I would not be surprised if we see a kind of A-380D version hopping IAD-EWR-BOS.

I'll use the quote below to respond.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
The A380 wasn't designed for that type of short-haul domestic work, and I'll almost guarantee that if a US carrier ever does order A380's, that's not how they're deployed.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
But in years to come, it's difficult to see how routes into the US which are now becoming served by other carriers A380's couldn't also support ones operated by US carriers....

Well using another a.net myth, no one will take a USA carrier operated A380 flight over a foreign operated A380 flight on the same route because the USA service is poor  
Quoting XaraB (Reply 15):
We are slowly seeing a tendency for US carriers to use the 777. An eventual 777NG stretch will probably slowly gain some orders as well, and then maybe the 748i.

Where, USA carriers were initial users of the 777 and so far, none have operated the larger version of the a/c namely the 777W so where are you seeing this trend to larger a/c, the 777LR has more range and payload, pax capacity is in the range of the 777-200 versions.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 17):
1. US carriers are huge only because they operate like the domestic bus or train companies in other countries. Most other countries rely on other modes of transport to ferry a sizeable chunk of their domestic traffic, while airlines tend to focus on long-haul and international routes, which are naturally smaller in market size.

2. Since US airlines run like the local bus company, shorter, higher frequency routes are preferred.

3. The population density in the US is not as high as, say, Japan, where B747s are used even on short domestic flights.

4. The domestic aviation landscape is typically far less constrained by regulations, so issues like frequency and capacity regulations and slot restrictions are less of an issue. One of the A380's biggest benefit is to circumvent slot restricted airports, which is not a major issue is just about any US airport.

Technical answer to the enitre issue, unless this is a thread other "nefarious" reasons.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is one of the most capitalistic unfriendly policies I've ever seen.

Chpt.11 is a cornerstone tool for capitalism, it allows the free market to decide which companies live or die, not some politician or bureaucrat spinning his/her fantasy of the way things should be, its all about who has money to invest, why should investors not have the right to invest their funds where they desire?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Chapter 11 allows weak poorly managed companies to survive, emerging with a lower cost structure(and usually the same bad management), forcing pricing down and causing the previously strong Airline (or company in other industries - Just like the domestic Auto Industry - they should have let GM or Chrysler fail - it was unfair to Ford to allow them to survive), to have to cut pricing as well, usually forcing them into Chapter 11 as well.

GM and Chrysler and two examples of the government using its influence to drive a company into Chpt.11 and fund its re-organization, 99% of Chpt.11 filings have nothing to do with govermnent funds. As for the competition factor, companies in other countries seem to be eliminating union jobs, getting rid of pensions and health benefits in the same way that USA companies are doing under Chpt.11, basically tearing up contracts, is there really a difference if it is monitored by a judge in a court of law?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
Have you checked the map of Australia lately? QF does "have a lot of domestic ground to cover".

The problem Australia faces which is the reverse of the USA, you have a lot of ground to cover with little pax numbers, the US has lots of ground to cover with massive numbers of pax, bus routes in the sky.

If new laws are passed in the USA to eliminate competition, a market can be created for the A380, unfortunately, by the time that happens, the A380 will be old technology and both Airbus and Boeing will have seen the writing on the wall and will design a massive transcontinental people mover with range to go USA west to east coast, anything beyond that would be a waste, but since competition would have been eliminated, they could abuse the a/c and charge what they want since pax would have not choice.  

On the other hand, the largest domestic carrier in the USA only operates a 737-700, and they got that large by serving and creating the market, mergers / consolidation occured early in their history and is almost irrelevant, mergers of the current legacies is something else.
Maybe if they left the domestic market and simply focused on international travel they could use their multiple hubs to bring pax to multiple ports in the USA and let them fend for themselves moving around the country by planebus, just a thought  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Carls
Posted 2010-06-06 05:17:22 and read 37473 times.

Quoting TK787 (Reply 3):
to get on a plane and get off a plane less than 1/2 hour

WOW! Even in a fully loaded 747 or A380 you will be able to get out of the plane in less than half hour.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2010-06-06 05:26:02 and read 37250 times.

As far as I know, UA is the only USA based airlines that uses passanger 747's and only for their USA-Australia service and no USA based carrier uses a pax 747 for any domestic service.

For most USA airliners, overall economic and service needs have led to an almost total shift to large and efficient 2-engines aircraft like the 777, 767, A-310, A-330 and eventually the 787. Even the A-340 only has a few USA based operators. Many USA based airlines got burned badly in the 1970's and 1980's using 747's as had too many seats to fill meaning having to sell many seats at steep discounts to fill them up for too many flights, especially at off-peak days and times of years. Add to that the declining demands for now and the forseeable future for premium revenue business and 1st Class travel, so why add many more seats you would have to sell cheap.

Perhaps the best chance for A-380's by USA based airliners would be for certain city pairs where there are slot controls due to traffic or regulation, like at LHR, NRT, China outside the USA and LAX, ORD and JFK in the USA.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 05:35:37 and read 37155 times.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 30):
As far as I know, UA is the only USA based airlines that uses passanger 747's and only for their USA-Australia service and no USA based carrier uses a pax 747 for any domestic service.
Delta 747 at ATL

Delta/NWA and United operate 747-400s, mostly to Asian destinations.. few people think VLA are the right airframes for US domestic services. Frankly I 've seen nobody saying this..

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2010-06-06 06:15:59 and read 36324 times.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I actually believe that 10 - 20 A380s (or 748i's) could be effectively used within the US - principally between major East Cost and West Coast cities (New York - Los Angeles, etc).

The only route where this would be remotely viable is JFK to LAX, but frequency is key and A380's would only work during teh morning or evening rush hour. AA and UA fly 767 & 757 with flights every 2 hours or 90 minutes, its almodta suttle with 3 classes, no need for 500 passenger wales here. Othe routes from LAX to IAD, BOS, MIA, PHL, ATL and CLT need smaller then 767's to maintain frequencies, many flights are A320's, 757 and 767.

About US airlines ever having A380, unlikely. A380 are for airlines with one main hub airport and perhaps a one smaller one(LH). Singapore, AF, Emirates and BA are all one hub airlines. Qantas has two hubs, SYD and MEL, but Australia is a special exception since its so far from every place QF flies to, LAX and LHR, the only way to move huge amounts of people is the biggest plane available.

US airlines will get 777-300ER at some point since many of teh first 777 were delivered to US airlines and 744 will soon need replacing.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2010-06-06 06:20:57 and read 36171 times.

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
Qantas, British airways, air France, singapore etc don't exactly have a lot of domestic ground to cover compared to the US.

Australia is comparatively the same size as the continental U.S. using that argument is mute. Also, Australia is a market that is in need of long haul aircraft to fly any where outside its boarders.

Quoting Carls (Reply 29):
WOW! Even in a fully loaded 747 or A380 you will be able to get out of the plane in less than half hour.

Only in an emergency, other wise, yeah, you wait in the back for at least that long. Deplaning a 767 takes at least 20 minutes because of certain individuals who insist on repacking their carry-on suit cases while they are blocking everybody else.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-06-06 06:27:01 and read 36052 times.

US customers do prefer more frequency and non-stop flights domestically, but I agree it's not accurate to project that preference to international services.

However, most US international routes are served with single daily flights and when they do have more than a single daily frequency, it's often two smaller aircraft (777s or 767s).

US carriers do not have the dense trunk routes served with 2, 3 or even 4 daily 747s that international carriers do because they have so many more gateway cities at their disposal to offer service from. They don't have a pressing need for a 500-seat plane because their traffic loads are not that great.

UA and DL are held up as "natural" A388 operators because they are 744 operators. I cannot speak for DL, but for UA, those 744s often rotate through their route system on an annual basis, being deployed for a few months at a time when certain city-pairs are in "high season traffic" and then moving on with the equipment being changed to a 777. So while an A388 could provide even more capacity during the "high season", it remains to be seen if UA needs that extra capacity. The 744s can also more easily be plugged into the domestic system for re-positioning then the A388 can (in that an A388 needs to operate out of an A388-ready gate for maximum effectiveness and those will be at international terminals, not domestic, so that increases connection times as passengers transit through security and such).

That does not preclude that US carriers from ever ordering the A380, but they are not current;y under the pressures to do so that many of their international peers are.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 06:30:30 and read 35967 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 32):
US airlines will get 777-300ER at some point since many of teh first 777 were delivered to US airlines and 744 will soon need replacing.

So they'll cut down on capasity and/or increase their daily flights to booming Asian markets, with their homecarriers gaining ground with their superior comfortable/efficient A380s? Not sure..

http://api.ning.com/files/0YuogPWAx5...ong_Skyline_Restitch__Dec_2007.jpg

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: angelmonsteral
Posted 2010-06-06 06:44:09 and read 35638 times.

I think that it will have too much cost because the distance of the delivery is so much so they will lost money when they can buy airplanes from Boeing whenever they want and i think that the delivery will also take too much time thats my opinion. -Angel.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: merlot
Posted 2010-06-06 07:17:03 and read 35036 times.

Quoting KennyK (Reply 9):
LHR being the most obvious answer.
No LHR = No A380.
---
If London had the airport it deserves, along the lines of LAX or DFW, the A380 project never gets off the ground. The question is: does LHR/NRT represent the future or the past?


Quoting huaiwei (Reply 17):
The population density in the US is not as high
****best high level answer*** which explains the European-Asian need and desire for the A380 and the American disinterest in it. (BTW - the population density issue explains much more than the A380 - it plays a big role in world outlook, economics and especially politics where the more communal-consensus approach in Europe conflicts with the individualistic-free market approach of America).

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
Have you checked the map of Australia lately? QF does "have a lot of domestic ground to cover".
Quoting brilondon (Reply 33):
Australia is comparatively the same size as the continental U.S. using that argument is mute
Have you checked the size of the Australian market lately? The whole country has the economy and population of Texas or half the size of California...less than 1/15th the size of America. Physical size is only part of the "size" issue and if Oz were next door to America like Canada is, QF would have no A380s either.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
A.net myth # 356: "US customers prefer more frequency and non-stop flights."
Agree that this is overhyped and repeated by the sheepish "experts". But, also see the different approaches to solving problems mentioned in my arrogant lecture on population density above. American approach=respond to the market first, efficiency be damned...European approach=efficiency first, market/consumer desires be damned. I exaggerate and oversimplify to clarify the point!

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
This one vanished in the string of follow up orders of a few yrs back.
Compare the A380 to 787 order book to see where the market says the future is headed - and most orders of both models are non-US carriers. Not that the market is always right, but one point of my post here is the American approach is the respond to the market and the European approach is to channel the market, attempt to lead it to the product, and to address other non-market goals deemed desirable.

The ownership and ownership's agenda at Airbus and Boeing is most clearly represented in the A380 and 787 as the respective focus of A and B for the last 10 years. NOT that either is right or wrong - just different.

Quoting keesje (Reply 27):
t's how UA/CO and Delta/NWA work.

And have 5 bankruptcies between them to show their undisputed brilliance in airline management!



Merlot

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2010-06-06 07:24:14 and read 34875 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 35):
So they'll cut down on capasity and/or increase their daily flights to booming Asian markets, with their homecarriers gaining ground with their superior comfortable/efficient A380s? Not sure..

Hey "newcomers" ANA and JAL fly mostly 777-300ER to teh US mainland, no A380's yet and unlikely for sveral reasons.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UAL747
Posted 2010-06-06 07:45:48 and read 34515 times.

Quoting angelmonsteral (Reply 36):
I think that it will have too much cost because the distance of the delivery is so much so they will lost money when they can buy airplanes from Boeing whenever they want and i think that the delivery will also take too much time thats my opinion. -Angel.

What? Boeing has delivered aircraft for airlines operating on all 6 continents, so has Airbus. I really don't see your point. If delivery costs were a factor, I wouldn't get in the airline business if I were you.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2010-06-06 08:06:22 and read 34108 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Another thought on why the U.S. system is as it is, is too much competition due to Chapter 11.

Great post...

When several companies uses the same strategy and only compete with price, the profit level for all the companies goes down and sooner or later they go bankrupt.
In order to stay alive for another year, they performs saving programs and cost cutting, but all savings made goes to the customer via further reduced prices.
Ultimately they have to reduce competition by merging or go bankrupt.
The airline industry is a typical example of this.

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
Chpt.11 is a cornerstone tool for capitalism, it allows the free market to decide which companies live or die,
Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
GM and Chrysler and two examples of the government using its influence to drive a company into Chpt.11 and fund its re-organization,

And you just proved that its managed by the government. Keeping uncompetitive companies alive and passing the bill to the taxpayers. Often covered and protected by the myth "Too big to fail".  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-06-06 08:10:04 and read 34026 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
If London had the airport it deserves, along the lines of LAX or DFW, the A380 project never gets off the ground.

Many of the reasons why people operate the A380 are the same as what was needed when the 747-100 was launched.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
****best high level answer*** which explains the European-Asian need and desire for the A380 and the American disinterest in it.

Not at all. The reason why the A380 and other large aircraft work on those sectors is the long sector lengths. A lot of efficiency is obtained by having a high RPK/sector ratio, and if you can do it with a 15%-20% lower cost per seat as the A380 has over the 77W, you are miles ahead of a carrier that operates a 777-200ER/A340-300/787-9.

In the US however, I expect that more medium haul (around 8 hours) city pairs will come into play between the US and Europe, and the US and South America. These routes are on the cusp of sector lengths where it could be advantageous to operate two smaller aircraft a day, or one larger one. if the city pair does not exist, naturally you will start with one smaller aircraft, and then build on that.

If US carriers get VLAs, I think it will be for sectors greater than 10-12 hrs, i.e. not Trans-Atlantic, more Asia/Australia. US carriers seem to be disinterested in flying the pacific and I think this is largely due to the cost disadvantage they have over many of the Asia/Pacific carriers.

The VLA trunk routes are like the major train lines in the sky, governments will build those train line and train stations to move masses of people and the commerce it attracts. The will have local busses to move people over shorter distances, this is where the narrow body aircraft come in.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
Physical size is only part of the "size" issue and if Oz were next door to America like Canada is, QF would have no A380s either.

That is true, it is the geographic location that distorts the RPKs that QF does relative to the size of its fleet. You either have to fly east 15 odd hours east to the US, or 22 hours to the west to Europe. Only a small percentage of the US carriers do any real ultra long haul operations.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
Compare the A380 to 787 order book to see where the market says the future is headed - and most orders of both models are non-US carriers.

Means nothing at all. They have two very different market segments.

The twin isle (A330/787/A350/777) market will make up about 25% of future aircraft sales, the VLA (747/A380) will only be about 5%. By value that twin isle segment will be about 40% of the sales value, the VLA segment is around 15%.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: XaraB
Posted 2010-06-06 08:11:45 and read 34000 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
Where, USA carriers were initial users of the 777 and so far, none have operated the larger version of the a/c namely the 777W so where are you seeing this trend to larger a/c, the 777LR has more range and payload, pax capacity is in the range of the 777-200 versions.

American had not operated anything bigger than the MD11 for several years before introducing the 777, and wasn't particularly happy with the MD11. Continental were operating DC10s and 767s when introducing the 777. Delta a combination of the two above scenarios. Only UA had 747s when introducing the 777. They all ordered the "small" 777s initially. Now they are ordering -ERs and -LRs to utilize their higher payload (when not fully needing the added range) which directly translates into more passengers, i.e. growth...

Carriers in the rest of the world embraced the added potential of the "big" and/or increased capability 777s much quicker. Hence my comment of the American carriers being relatively slow in their capacity growth.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-06-06 08:32:34 and read 33486 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 40):
And you just proved that its managed by the government. Keeping uncompetitive companies alive and passing the bill to the taxpayers. Often covered and protected by the myth "Too big to fail".

I guess we have a difference of opinion when it comes to laws of a country and the politicians involvement in those laws once they have been passed, but we digress  

The biq question no one seems to want to answer is how do you eliminate competition within the USA without taking away the freedom of individuals to invest their money. UA/CO or NW/DL anyone believe that they will be allowed to eliminate/reduce service to multiple regions within the USA without WN, B6, US, AA or some new entrant introducing service to compensate and keep fares inline, what these mergers are really doing is creating additional growth markets for the LCC carriers. That is what is needed for the A380, 747-8i and larger twins being viable products in the domestic market. I guess some USA carrier could try a high utlilzation point to point service with an A380 with a small fleet, example a/c does a LHR-NYC turn, then NYC-pick a non-Europe market needing the capacity Central / South America, return to NYC then LHR again, something on the west coast could also work, but high utilization on international runs would be the key as there would be minimal economic domestic use.
Just a thought  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: adamblang
Posted 2010-06-06 08:47:35 and read 33220 times.

First, there's the domestic short- and medium-haul and the international short- and medium-haul.

There are some routes within the US where frequency matters more -- business routes where business travelers want to fly at a particular time where a traveler will lean toward purchasing based on schedule over price so it makes sense to use smaller, higher CASM aircraft more frequently. An hourly A380 between Chicago and Washington will be mostly empty and yet you're paying for excess crew and fuel, higher pilot pay, on a more expensive to purchase and maintain aircraft.

There are some routes within the US where price matters more -- leisure routes where leisure travelers want to get where they're going cheaply and the traveler will lean toward purchasing based on price over schedule so it makes sense to use larger, lower CASM aircraft less frequently. But these routes are often thin - Des Moines to Orlando isn't going to support an A380 - or competitive - American, Continental, Delta, JetBlue, United, and Southwest all fly New York City to Orlando non stop so you'll have to nearly give your seats away to carve out enough passengers to fill the A380.

Then there's the international medium- and long-haul.

First, you've got the big network carrier hubs and their international destinations. Each of the network carriers has multiple hubs that are splitting traffic. If US Airways put all of its traffic to London through one airport (let's say Philadelphia), maybe they'd run an A380 in their mix. But they don't -- for ease of connection, for reduced number connections necessary to get from a smaller market to London -- they have London flights out of both Philadelphia and Charlotte. So now that seat capacity is split between two hubs and the A380 doesn't make so much sense. Furthermore, on the feed side, US Airways isn't going to move all of its Charlotte regional flights to Philadelphia so they can make the business case to get some A380s -- someone going from Savannah, GA to Nashville, TN is going to fly Delta through Atlanta before they connect through Philadelphia.

Second, you've got carriers like United and Delta that have large aircraft -- 744s -- in their fleets already that are making big-market to big-market large aircraft work. Delta's hubs are sufficiently positioned, their feeder network sufficiently strong that they can profitably fill a 744 on interhub flights and to some larger markets. But they already have perfectly usable 744s so their money is better spent on something other than A380s. And United's been doing a similar thing but apparently would like to reduce capacity with their A350s.

Third, you've got American and Continental either operating out of hubs that (probably) couldn't support A380 traffic - Houston, Dallas, Miami. (I have to imagine that American and Continental don't have sufficient feed to Houston, Dallas, or Miami to fill enough very large aircraft to justify operating a whole new type rather than laying on an extra frequency where appropriate -- otherwise they'd already be doing it. My understanding is that non-US travelers don't like to use US hubs as their transfer point for non-US to non-US travel due to our security hassles so these hubs are, for all intents and purposes, toward the outskirts of what US-bound or -based travelers would prefer to connect through. I'm in Milwaukee and don't want to connect through Houston or Dallas to get to London -- I'll pay an extra $50 to connect through Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, or Boston instead. And if I'm traveling to South America and connecting through Houston, Dallas, or Miami, those routes probably aren't going to warrant an A380 anyway due to the size of the destination market.) Or you have a hub in a competitive market where ticket fares will be low and margins too thin to justify with all those extra seats - New York City, Chicago - so you'd rather make money on a few seats than enter a bloodbath with a lot of seats.

So the A380 doesn't make any sense domestically. And, given the route structure and business models of American airlines' international operations or the fact that a carrier where the A380 could make sense is already operating serviceable 744s, the A380's time hasn't come yet internationally.

All that said, maybe Delta decides to replace its 744s with A380s tomorrow or United decides the A350 isn't big enough and places an order.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: KU747
Posted 2010-06-06 08:50:53 and read 33163 times.

They never ordered 777-300's so definitely they can't handle A380. It was in the past when US carriers used to brag about the size of aircrafts each company has such as 747's 100, 200 and SP's, L1011's, DC10's. but now it is not the case.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-06 08:51:56 and read 33195 times.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 30):
As far as I know, UA is the only USA based airlines that uses passanger 747's and only for their USA-Australia service and no USA based carrier uses a pax 747 for any domestic service.

DL flies 747s. UA flies them to Australia, to Asia and to Europe.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 30):
Even the A-340 only has a few USA based operators.

None, actually.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
US customers do prefer more frequency and non-stop flights domestically, but I agree it's not accurate to project that preference to international services.

But do US customers prefer frequency more than, say, Japanese customers do, with their shinkansen trains between Tokyo and Osaka departing every 10 minutes? Or more than, say, Spanish customers do, with MAD-BCN-MAD having had about 100 flights per day (each way) before the high-speed train started running a couple of years ago?

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
Have you checked the size of the Australian market lately?

The poster I was replying to was talking about "ground covered", not about the size of the market.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
American approach=respond to the market first, efficiency be damned...European approach=efficiency first, market/consumer desires be damned.

The way you put it, passengers should flock to US-based carriers whenever they have a choice. However, the facts don't seem to support your assertion...

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
And have 5 bankruptcies between them to show their undisputed brilliance in airline management!

Which is about the same number as for US and CO combined, and they don''t operate 747s. Your point again?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2010-06-06 09:33:36 and read 32388 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 46):
But do US customers prefer frequency more than, say, Japanese customers do, with their shinkansen trains between Tokyo and Osaka departing every 10 minutes? Or more than, say, Spanish customers do, with MAD-BCN-MAD having had about 100 flights per day (each way) before the high-speed train started running a couple of years ago?

If there was reliable and frequent 200mph train service between Chicago and New York City, you'd see a lot less ORD-LGA flights. But since there is not, air travel is the only viable option for business travelers and they require service throughout the day so you have so much flight frequency to meet it.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Longhornmaniac
Posted 2010-06-06 10:05:28 and read 31773 times.

Quoting adamblang (Reply 44):

This post isn't getting enough love.   

You want your answer, it's in there.

Cheers,
Cameron

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-06 10:22:25 and read 31481 times.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 48):
Quoting adamblang (Reply 44):

This post isn't getting enough love.   

You want your answer, it's in there.

Well he did look at a few aspects and reaches the conclusion :

Quoting adamblang (Reply 44):
All that said, maybe Delta decides to replace its 744s with A380s tomorrow or United decides the A350 isn't big enough and places an order.

Probably the right conclusion. Maybe DL and/or UA will order A380s, maybe not.  

I wonder about airlines like AA. E.g. if they want to connect Middle / South America with LHR, CDG via MIA or DFW. Is a A380 really to large for the next 20 years? How manay flights are there between e.g. LHR and DFW, MIA, JFK ? They have good feeder networks for their hubs.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: merlot
Posted 2010-06-06 10:55:40 and read 30873 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
****best high level answer*** which explains the European-Asian need and desire for the A380 and the American disinterest in it.

Not at all. The reason why the A380 and other large aircraft work on those sectors is the long sector lengths.

You can't see the forest for the trees: you're taught to think in everyday operating parameters and can't see the bigger picture as to the point of the thread: why the A380 is popular (insofar as 200 orders over 10 years is popular) outside of America but not stateside.

The operating chracteristics of the plane is only part of the answer - sector lengths, fuel consumption, CASM, etc.. are what you can teach a computer to understand and if computers bought planes the A380 would be a runaway success.

The bigger part of why planes are bought is, like all buying decisions made by humans, outside of the realm of anyting you can objectively quantify - like fuel efficiency on longer sector lengths.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
The VLA trunk routes are like the major train lines in the sky, governments will build those train line and train stations to move masses of people and the commerce it attracts.

You prove my point exactly and you don't even know it - non-Americans often want their government taking the lead in the market AND dealing with overcrowded high density conditions - neither of these goals exist in America as much as in Asia or Europe, which, put to its practical results in terms of airliners - means Americans are indifferent to the A380.

I don't know if you were around in 2000 or so and paying attention, but Airbus literature at the time was all about how in 10-20 years the VLA market would come to dominate international transport and represented the surest profit and growth for the company. Boeing literature was all about the certainty that smaller twins would continue to grow and dominate the international transport market and, more importantly, that single aisle medium body jets would continue to be the biggest sellers to airlines.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
Compare the A380 to 787 order book to see where the market says the future is headed - and most orders of both models are non-US carriers.

Means nothing at all. They have two very different market segments.

YES - one market segment exists only on a small scale and may not be enough to overcome the design/production costs of the aircraft - and another market segment is immensely popular and profitable!

You think 800+ 787 sales pre-delivery versus 200 A380 sales over 10 years "means nothing"? Does the market have any relevance to you? To many people it means a lot - Airbus was betting on the A380 story (which obviously is one you identify with) - namely- increased traffic between a relatively few number of world hubs, all overcrowded, means the A380 is where the company should be concentrating - and that's exactly where Airbus spent almost all their time and resources for a decade. Look to the forest, not the trees! No doubt the A380 is the best VLA in history! But is it an answer to the market or nerdy intellectuals trying to tell the market how it should be run?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 46):
And have 5 bankruptcies between them to show their undisputed brilliance in airline management!

Which is about the same number as for US and CO combined, and they don''t operate 747s. Your point again?

...My point is that while there are definitely reasons US carriers don't order the A380, the unimpeachable intelligence and record of airline management can not be one of them.

Merlot

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: pnwtraveler
Posted 2010-06-06 10:56:33 and read 30863 times.

AC operates 4 flights a day between YYZ and LHR with a 5th slot in reserve. They would save money by consolidating all of that volume into two A380's. However, they have clearly said the A380 is not in the cards for them. The reason? Much of the LHR traffic is seasonal with volumes varying. You have to have other routes to switch the A380's to when LHR is softer. Canadians are not that different from Americans in the sense of prefering frequency to less frequent. Also when frequent fliers are surveyed convenience comes up huge.

Could an airline make a couple of A380's work on their routes? Quite possibly. But the industry in North America has been extremely cyclical and airlines have learned they might lose out having more VLA but the flexibility they gain is very important.

For the volume business traveler, productivity and schedule are a much bigger factor than $ and anyone that says otherwise isn't as familiar with business travel in North America as they think. The loss of productivity of having a key employee sitting in an airport to save a couple hundred dollars to wait to fly on a later flight is huge, and to quote a phrase, a company that makes misses that point is "penny wise and pound foolish."

Also comparing Australia with the US as far as size goes is one thing, but the business communities are very different. The volume of business travel is considerably different.

Another comparison that European's often get wrong when they make comments about air travel in the US is the volume of rail travel in Europe compared to the US. Except for a couple of key runs in the North East Corridor such as Boston, New York and Washington, business travel is predominantly done in the air or even car. Compare lifestyles as well. Drive thru convenience in the US is predominant because of a time and convenience culture, that is totally foreign for Europeans. Even European car manufacturers are finally just starting to get the cupholder thing right in cars  .

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ATLflyer
Posted 2010-06-06 10:58:47 and read 30571 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
US carriers seem to be disinterested in flying the pacific and I think this is largely due to the cost disadvantage they have over many of the Asia/Pacific carriers.

Definitely wrong.

Quoting keesje (Reply 49):
Probably the right conclusion. Maybe DL and/or UA will order A380s, maybe not.  

I hope so. It doesn't make sense to have a fleet of A380s like Emirates, but it does seem that it could be useful in some cases.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: PGNCS
Posted 2010-06-06 11:01:41 and read 30491 times.

Quoting Danny (Reply 10):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 1):
Because they believe that other aircraft will be more profitable for them.

Looking at financial results of US majors over last decade their beliefs as to profitability of aircraft must be wrong.

So aircraft that make even less economic sense for the routes being flown can't lose money faster?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: United Airline
Posted 2010-06-06 11:19:54 and read 30166 times.

You might see UA getting the A 380 after a few years

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-06 11:36:25 and read 29855 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):
If there was reliable and frequent 200mph train service between Chicago and New York City, you'd see a lot less ORD-LGA flights. But since there is not, air travel is the only viable option for business travelers and they require service throughout the day so you have so much flight frequency to meet it.

Exactly! The point I was trying to make is that US passengers want frequency, yes. And so does everybody else. As examples I used Japan and Spain. There's nothing unique about the appetite of US custumers for frequency.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 51):
Drive thru convenience in the US is predominant because of a time and convenience culture, that are totally foreign for Europeans.

Do you really believe "time" and "convenience" are foreign for Europeans? For Europeans convenience might mean stepping out home, walking 3 minutes and getting cash from an ATM, instead of stepping out home, driving 15 minutes, and getting cash from a drive-thru ATM. Or it might mean walking 3 minutes and grabbing a quick lunch at a local eatery, instead of driving 15 minutes to get a Double Whopper from a Burger King drive-thru. What's more "convenient"?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: bohica
Posted 2010-06-06 11:37:30 and read 29892 times.

Back in the late 1960's-early 70's when Boeing introduced the 747 almost every major carrier in the US screamed "me too" and jumped on the 747 bandwagon. Many of these carriers learned the hard way that the 747, while prestigious to have, were money sucking beasts that were flying around their route systems half-full all the time. At many airlines, the 747 changed the color of the ink in their financial reports from black to red. In fact, United is the ONLY surviving US carrier that has continuously operated the 747 since its introduction. (yeah, yeah, NW merged into DL)

The surviving US carriers have learned their lesson form the early days of the 747 and they obviously are not about to make the same mistake again. They seem happy with their future A350/B787 fleets. While there are several routes to/from the US which can support the A380/B748, it is not enough to justify the purchase of a fleet of VLA for US carriers.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-06 11:42:59 and read 29760 times.

Quoting bohica (Reply 56):
At many airlines, the 747 changed the color of the ink in their financial reports from black to red.

Do you have any facts to support this statement?

Quoting bohica (Reply 56):
The surviving US carriers have learned their lesson form the early days of the 747 and they obviously are not about to make the same mistake again.

So do we finally understand why the legacy USA airlines have done comparably worse than the top foreign airlines like, say, LH, SQ, QF, CX, AF, BA, etc? Is it because CO, DL, AA, US bought plenty of 747s while those foreign airlines didn't make that mistake? Oh, wait a second...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-06-06 12:01:51 and read 29491 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
You prove my point exactly and you don't even know it - non-Americans often want their government taking the lead in the market AND dealing with overcrowded high density conditions - neither of these goals exist in America as much as in Asia or Europe, which, put to its practical results in terms of airliners - means Americans are indifferent to the A380.

I think you may want to state what your point is, that makes no point at all.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
I don't know if you were around in 2000 or so and paying attention, but Airbus literature at the time was all about how in 10-20 years the VLA market would come to dominate international transport and represented the surest profit and growth for the company.

I was around back then, and the 1999 Airbus market outlook is not that much different to what it is today, the market breakdown in percentage between narrow bodies, twin isle, and large wide bodies has not changed that much at all. In 1999 the VLA segment (> 400 seats) was for 10% of the orders (5% in last years), and 25% of the value of the orders (15% in last years), and for a future growth of 5% P.A. The value of the market size and strategic importance of the segments was why EADS gave the go ahead for the A380.

Airbus never said "the VLA market would come to dominate international transport", the A380 was designed to nly partially fill 5-10% of the total number of frames, it is a product designed for a market segment that both Airbus and Boeing agree in their market forecasts exists. Neither of them say it is the major focus of their business.

Some of that 5% market growth will be picked up by A380s, some will be picked up by twin isles, and the majority of airlines that are replacing the 744 and need that capacity are doing so with A380s. The major markets for larger aircraft will be transatlantic, trans-pacific, asia-europe, and within Asia. This is exactly where the bulk of today's 747 fleet are utilised.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
Boeing literature was all about the certainty that smaller twins would continue to grow and dominate the international transport market and, more importantly, that single aisle medium body jets would continue to be the biggest sellers to airlines.

Not at all, Boeing has always maintained in their forecasts a market segment for very large wide bodies, and still does today, it was the basis for them launching the 747-8i.

"medium body jets would continue to be the biggest sellers to airlines", that belongs to the narrow body market, the 737/A320 size, that market is larger than the twin isle and VLA market combined.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):

YES - one market segment exists only on a small scale and may not be enough to overcome the design/production costs of the aircraft - and another market segment is immensely popular and profitable!

The 787 is far from being profitable, I would not be surprised if the A380 is profitable before the 787 is. Boeing and Airbus do their accounts differently, Airbus has already written off all the development and delay costs for the A380, Boeing spreads a lot of those costs out over the length of the project (called program/project accounting).

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
You think 800 787 sales pre-delivery versus 200 A380 sales over 10 years "means nothing"?

Its does mean nothing until Boeing is able to start earning money from them, at the moment the 787 costs have been draining Boeing.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
Airbus was betting on the A380 story (which obviously is one you identify with) - namely- increased traffic between a relatively few number of world hubs, all overcrowded, means the A380 is where the company should be concentrating - and that's exactly where Airbus spent almost all their time and resources for a decade.

Actually the EADS approach over the past decade was to value add to the existing products, establish their military derivatives, develop the A400M and A380. At the same time they developed enhanced versions of the A320, A330, A340, developed the A310-MRTT, A330-MRTT, A330F, and started the A320F. The rotary and space side of the business has been doing well, and the overall business would be doing a lot better if the A380 was delivered on time.

Quoting ATLflyer (Reply 52):
Definitely wrong.

Care to explain then why the likes of AA does no operate to HKG or SYD, or why most US carriers are not increasing their capacity on pacific routes whele their competitors are increasing capacity, and new entrants are starting up.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ncfc99
Posted 2010-06-06 12:08:19 and read 29310 times.

Quoting XaraB (Reply 15):
Assuming conservative growth in the air travel market, even more airports and airways in the US will become congested to the point of service "breakdown", as in delays more common than on-time departures, etc. Sooner or later, one of the US airlines will have to take the plunge and stop adding frequencies when wanting to grow, and upgauging equipment instead. There is definitely not a first-mover advantage here, and the first airline to do so will probably bleed badly until the others follow suit, and the American public changes its hewn-in-stone travel preferences.



IMHO, until there is a serious change in the way US carriers customers want to travel, this is not going to happen. It will take a brave airline or group of airlines, to attempt to change it or some form of regulation from the government. If an airlines tries it on their own, as someone mentioned above, they will lose money hand over fist(probably). If a group of airlines(AA, DL, CO/UA, US, WN) got together to agree to cut frequency and add capacity, then it may have a chance. Until the choice of many frequencies are taken away from the customer, they are going to continue to choose the most convenient for themselves. And why shouldn't they, I know I would.
Its a similar situation with low fares, until they are raised to sustainable levels, airlines will still lose money. When I book a flight I choose the lowest fare available at a convenient time for me, I will not offer to pay extra if the airline are not asking for it. Until the airlines make the customer pay enough to cover the costs of running the airline, the customer will pay what is asked of them, not a penny more. It is up to the airlines to make sure they ask enough.

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
Chpt.11 is a cornerstone tool for capitalism, it allows the free market to decide which companies live or die, not some politician or bureaucrat spinning his/her fantasy of the way things should be, its all about who has money to invest, why should investors not have the right to invest their funds where they desire?



CH11 damages healthy, well run airlines because they have to match the prices of an airline that has just left CH11 or go bust/enter C11 eventually themselves. I see this as a catch 22 situation.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-06-06 12:12:52 and read 29249 times.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 59):

CH11 damages healthy, well run airlines because they have to match the prices of an airline that has just left CH11 or go bust/enter C11 eventually themselves. I see this as a catch 22 situation.

I understand it effects the whole industry, as suppliers who have their debts written off in a CH11 process will end up recovering the money from other customers, normally in the same industry through higher prices.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ER757
Posted 2010-06-06 12:22:12 and read 29086 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 35):
So they'll cut down on capasity and/or increase their daily flights to booming Asian markets, with their homecarriers gaining ground with their superior comfortable/efficient A380s? Not sure..

That seems to be exactly what UA is doing - the A350-1000 will be their largest aircraft when they retire the 747's if their current strategy doesn't change after the merger with CO.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: merlot
Posted 2010-06-06 12:30:48 and read 28917 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 58):
Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
You prove my point exactly and you don't even know it - non-Americans often want their government taking the lead in the market AND dealing with overcrowded high density conditions - neither of these goals exist in America as much as in Asia or Europe, which, put to its practical results in terms of airliners - means Americans are indifferent to the A380.

I think you may want to state what your point is, that makes no point at all.

Does everything have to be in a formula for you to get it?

Our disagreement is that you seem unwilling to recognize anything that explains 200 orders for the A380 over 10 years and no Amercan interest in it, unless it is a quantifiable fact related to performance data or some other undisputed measure - something you can put in a spreadsheet, analyze and arrive at one "correct" answer for. There is only one car that is most fuel efficient in every car segment, yet it is rarely the most popular, especially in America - where the ideals and beliefs about how the market should operate and what is the "best" means of transport for the masses are very different from the goals and values you find important.

When you can explain in a formula why the most fuel efficient car is not the best seller that will apparently be the only time you will understand why the A380 has no US sales - until then we will just have to disagree.

Quoting zeke (Reply 58):
Its does mean nothing until Boeing is able to start earning money from them,

Everything in your world is black and white? Orders "mean nothing"? Do orders in any way signify market appetite, market demand for a product? Or is it just because you disapprove of the market's behavior that you refuse to acknowledge its validity?

Best wishes for continued success, but as long as you can not see the invalidity of objective quantifiable data as the sole (or even major) reason for A380s success or failure, we will not be able to communicate well with each other. But best regards anyway!

Merlot

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: maddog888
Posted 2010-06-06 12:47:20 and read 28658 times.

Quoting TK787 (Reply 3):
I don't remember the last time I was on a twin aisle on a domestic flight, even 757s are becoming a thing of the past. Another thing I realize, I actually like to get on a plane and get off a plane less than 1/2 hour since there are only 160 people on these planes.

which you then lose sitting on a taxiway waiting for the dozens of other small aircraft all waiting to get anywhere near a runway!

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
US customers simply want more frequency and nonstop flights than the A380 can provide

er... "nonstop"? when was the last time anyone was able to get from point A to point D direct whithout going through point B and/or point C in the US. Any quick look at expedia or similar will show that 2 or 3 connections is the norm nowadays.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-06-06 13:10:18 and read 28286 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 57):
Do you have any facts to support this statement?

You can look back in history and look at events that took place in the 1970s and 80s with one US airline after another shedding their 747 fleet. Delta, Continental, National, American all said good-bye to the 747, while carriers like Pan Am and TWA continually reduced their 747 fleets as time went on.
You can also look at Europe where the 747 was in many ways a fad also, with one airline after another operating them also from SAS, Swissair, Aer Lingus, Sabena, TAP, Alitalia, Iberia, etc, which were all rolled over in favor of smaller equipment.

More contemporary today, you look at a carrier like United which has seen its 744 fleet drop from 44 to 30 frames and now 24.

Clearly if the economics of the aircraft were so wonderful, US airlines would be tripping over themselves to acquire more.

At the end of the day, the usage of a 747 or VLA like the A380 will work only on a handful of dense global markets.
Quoting ER757 (Reply 61):
the A350-1000 will be their largest aircraft when they retire the 747's if their current strategy doesn't change after the merger with CO.

United has not even ordered the -1000. As of now plan is solely the -900.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: hawkercaMM
Posted 2010-06-06 13:20:05 and read 28157 times.

By 2020 I would not be surprised to see >200 A380 movements in the US each day. I think almost every airline that has ordered the A380 will operate them to the US. I believe "foreign Airlines" with the A380 will eat up the growth of Asian, ME and EU traffic to the US probably with the help of code-shares with the 3 US majors that will be the final result of consolidation.

I would not be surprised by 2020 if the US as a whole will see more A380 movements than Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi combined. If not more then near polarity.

I would suggest when comparing the order books of A380 and B787 we should consider 1 A380 as 2 B787s.
Considering ~number of seats equal, purchase cost, number of engines, maintenance costs, etc
That would still leave 404 (202 frames!) A380s against 866 B787s.

Which aircraft will be that last in production A380 or B787?
An interesting thought.. Will A380s replace A380s?

I personally believe the A380 will be in production for >30years.
In that time with an average production rate of >2.5 frame/month there will be >900 frames produced.
There is a massive amount of life left in the A380 programme, A380-800HGW, A380-900, new engines.
The aircraft is going to get better and better.

[Edited 2010-06-06 13:28:06]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-06-06 13:40:20 and read 27883 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 62):
Our disagreement is that you seem unwilling to recognize anything that explains 200 orders for the A380 over 10 years and no Amercan interest in it, unless it is a quantifiable fact related to performance data or some other undisputed measure - something you can put in a spreadsheet, analyze and arrive at one "correct" answer for.

ILFC, UPS and Fedex have ordered the A380, and passenger airlines in the US have expressed interest in the aircraft in the past. Your statement "no Amercan (American) interest in it" is completely false.

Quoting merlot (Reply 62):

When you can explain in a formula why the most fuel efficient car is not the best seller that will apparently be the only time you will understand why the A380 has no US sales - until then we will just have to disagree.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Quoting merlot (Reply 62):
Do orders in any way signify market appetite, market demand for a product? Or is it just because you disapprove of the market's behavior that you refuse to acknowledge its validity?

Boeing had 59 787 cancellations last year, and 16 so far this year, no cancellations for the A380 over the same period.

Do cancellations in any way signify market appetite ? market demand for a product ?

The A330 has also outsold the 787 last year and this year.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: futureorthopod
Posted 2010-06-06 14:11:17 and read 27389 times.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 22):
I'm willing to bet that any airliner investing in a couple of relative high density wide-bodies (77W-440 seats, 748-500 seats or 380-700 seats) in a 2 class configuration operating between the really heavy longer routs within the US operating on a lower frequency could make an absolute killing with the ability to undercut prices due to much lower overhead costs and a continuously high fuel price, something much less important 2 decedes ago.
Eg, NYC-LAX 5 times daily 2 in the morning, 2 in the evening and 1 between 12.00h and 17.00h ).

Everybody immediately assumes that this wouldn't work in the US market but nobody ever really tried it as far as I know in the last 10-20 years, maybe an interesting experiment for DL or UA or maybe even VX with some of the planes that are currently stored and easily could be put to good use maybe even starting a new trend withing the US.

Actually that model was used by a few airlines on those (long) medium haul coast to coast flights! TWA and UA both used to fly 742's on a regular basis between LAX and JFK.

Anyways, what about the margin of profitability on domestic vs international long haul flights and how that relates to the type of aircraft used! I do not know enough to provide any true insight in to this!

I am just curious....can someone comment?

thanks

Furture Orthopod...aka John

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: merlot
Posted 2010-06-06 14:16:16 and read 27303 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 66):
Do cancellations in any way signify market appetite ? market demand for a product ?

Yes, of course they do, thats why I quote net orders, which includes cancelations - but your happiness in Boeing cancellations announces your agenda.

One airplane has 800+ sales and the other has 200, and given that each manufacturer devoted virtually all their resources to one new project each in the last 10 years - if you believe the market is the judge of success then the market has spoken. One manufacturer tried to lead the market where it thought it should be and the other responded to market demands - the two different approachs to selling airplanes is the point (of my posts), and they are largely explained by the differing American/European outlook and approach to many allocations of resources beyond just aircraft.

Zeke, you obviuosly have a strong Airbus loyalty and dislike for Boeing (and probably America in general as well), so I will let you have the last word on this and wish you happiness in your crusade!

Merlot

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: vin2basketball
Posted 2010-06-06 14:24:14 and read 27144 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
No LHR = No A380.
---
If London had the airport it deserves, along the lines of LAX or DFW, the A380 project never gets off the ground. The question is: does LHR/NRT represent the future or the past?

Exactly

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
If US carriers get VLAs, I think it will be for sectors greater than 10-12 hrs, i.e. not Trans-Atlantic, more Asia/Australia. US carriers seem to be disinterested in flying the pacific and I think this is largely due to the cost disadvantage they have over many of the Asia/Pacific carriers.

That's where the CASM advantage starts to really kick in, and also where the potential better product on a VLA starts to generate a revenue premium

Quoting adamblang (Reply 44):
Third, you've got American and Continental either operating out of hubs that (probably) couldn't support A380 traffic - Houston, Dallas, Miami. (I have to imagine that American and Continental don't have sufficient feed to Houston, Dallas, or Miami to fill enough very large aircraft to justify operating a whole new type rather than laying on an extra frequency where appropriate -- otherwise they'd already be doing it.

AA at DFW is larger than any world hub with the exception of DL at ATL. CO at IAH is around the size of LH at SYD. Miami is the largest hub to latin america in the world with 16 million+ pax last year.

NYC (CO @ EWR, AA @ JFK) can't support A380s?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: maddog888
Posted 2010-06-06 14:25:58 and read 27137 times.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 22):
Everybody immediately assumes that this wouldn't work in the US market but nobody ever really tried it as far as I know in the last 10-20 years, maybe an interesting experiment for DL or UA or maybe even VX with some of the planes that are currently stored and easily could be put to good use maybe even starting a new trend withing the US.

The problem with this idea is the word "experiment". No airline will "experiment" as the consequences of failure are too great for the bean counters to sanction

J

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 59):
If a group of airlines(AA, DL, CO/UA, US, WN) got together to agree to cut frequency and add capacity, then it may have a chance.

At which point the anti-trust groups(? - US competition committee) starts screaming blue murder about big business colluding to the detriment of the public

J

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ERJ170
Posted 2010-06-06 14:29:17 and read 27093 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 66):
ILFC, UPS and Fedex have ordered the A380, and passenger airlines in the US have expressed interest in the aircraft in the past. Your statement "no Amercan (American) interest in it" is completely false.

I don't know. UPS and FedEx both cancelled their order. Not sure about ILFC, but I don't know if they have received any of their aircraft either. Also, even if all the US passenger airlines had expressed interest, absolutely none of them ordered a single one. And all of them have ordered longhaul aircraft. So, if the question is will any US airline order the A380, I would have to say no. Why? Because they already did their ordering and it was for the 777, 787, 330, and 350. Not a single 747 or 380 was picked up so I think you can the likelyhood of an airline ordering, receiving, flying, or leasing one with a US flag on the aircraft is probably around 99% improbable.

I would even be so bold as to say no North American (Canada, Mexico, Caribbean, or Central American) airline will be buying the A380 now, later, or even ever...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: kanban
Posted 2010-06-06 15:01:40 and read 26560 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 66):
ILFC, UPS and Fedex have ordered the A380, and passenger airlines in the US have expressed interest in the aircraft in the past. Your statement "no Amercan (American) interest in it" is completely false.



ILFC is not an American airline as you know, UPS and Fedex cancelled... one issue is flexibility... yes the freighters might have made sense moving vast amounts between three hubs (US, Europe, Asia).. however an A380 is limited to very few US city pairs where as smaller (including 777's) can be easily shifted based on seat demand... look at the problems they've had trying to operate out of New York... today a 380, tomorrow a 777 then back again. The A380 is a lot of money to sit on the tarmac just in-case there are enough passengers to make the flight profitable... and once the novelty wears off (like with the Concorde) we'll see just how viable the plane is. Thomas Cook will be picking them up, reconfiguring to all steerage cattle car seating and flying tours.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: briguy1974
Posted 2010-06-06 15:18:21 and read 26314 times.

In my opionion the chances of a US carrier ordering the A380 has increased over the last year with the Delta merger and the announced UA/CO partnership. It stands to reason that AA will not sit back without a merger or purchase of its own. With these new mega carriers I think you could see the need for UA to get some A380's for markets like SFO-FRA, SFO-HKG, SFO-NRT, also markets like ORD-FRA, ORD-NRT. You can see the picture I paint. Huge new mega hubs with *Alliance connections. On the Delta side you can see the same demand on markets they are serving 3-5 times a day like DTW-AMS, MSP-AMS, ATL AMS, with the sdame thing with all three and NRT.
3 years ago I thooght I would never see an A380 in a US airlines colors but now it may have to happen with the formation of these mega carriers...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: adamblang
Posted 2010-06-06 15:26:51 and read 26209 times.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 69):
AA at DFW is larger than any world hub with the exception of DL at ATL. CO at IAH is around the size of LH at SYD. Miami is the largest hub to latin america in the world with 16 million+ pax last year.

NYC (CO @ EWR, AA @ JFK) can't support A380s?

Having a huge hub is great and all but all of the passengers have to be going to the same place at the same time on the same airline for an A380 to work. Having competition on a route fragmenting the market (as I wrote in my previous post) and needing frequency to lure business travelers (as I wrote in my previous post) makes the A380 or 748 a less attractive aircraft.

You gave the examples of Newark and JFK. As an example, a lot of people fly between the New York (all airports) and London (all airports) -- 31 flights a day on 5 airlines. But with Delta, Virgin, American/British Airways, and Continental splitting the traffic, the utility of an A380 is reduced. Furthermore, a decent chunk of the route is business traffic that will pay a premium to fly when they want which means lower capacity aircraft at a higher frequency (each of the airlines on NYC-LON need their ~6 flights a day to compete with the other airlines doing ~6 flights a day). Airlines, not being completely incompetent, know this and so offer higher frequency on smaller aircraft. There is a lot of competition on a lot of routes out of New York so it probably becomes a question of "for the small number of routes where we can support an A380, do we really want another aircraft type to maintain or should we just put on an additional 767?"

You also mentioned Dallas-Fort Worth. American has a number of flights coming in through the day, mostly full of passengers that aren't actually going to Dallas. When they booked, they considered the duration of layover. They, particularly business travelers, considered the time of departure and arrival in the day. That raises the question does American end two 767 flights on a route and replace them with one A380 flight, making a number of passengers wait for a few hours in the terminal (probably at a discounted fare to save the sale)? Or does American end two 767 flights and replace them with one A380 flight, then cancel two RJ routes and replace them with a single 737 to keep connections timed reasonably? That scenario will probably lose business travelers who want to travel on Continental's 8 am, 10 am, noon, or 2 pm RJ flights over American's 9 am or 11 am flights. I imagine a good executive will take the hit on increased costs (extra pilots, extra frames, etc) with the idea that those costs can be made up on higher fares (keep more business traffic + don't to compete quite so hard on price = make more money). Flying more 767s and 777s -- which they don't need to spend more money on because they already have them right now -- looks more attractive than buying, then flying A380s which might lose passengers to airlines with higher frequency and smaller planes.

Lastly, you bring up Miami. First, all of the passengers have to be going to the same place at the same time for an A380 to work. Most final destinations in the US can't support an A380 so it's probably safe to exclude visiting friends and relatives traffic going to smaller airports throughout the United States. Second, a lot of American's Caribbean, Central American, and South American routes are well served as it is by American Eagle, American Connection, 737s, and 757s. It wouldn't make sense to put an A380 into any of these places. Finally, I'm told non-US travelers don't like connecting through the United States and will generally pay more to avoid it because of security and customs hassles so trying to capture that traffic should be difficult. (Dubai and Hong Kong and Singapore are customs-easy transit hubs that have been successful connecting huge cities with plenty of success. And these are exactly the routes A380s and 748s are for. The United States is not a transit hub country so American can't bank on that out of Miami.) Which leaves a handful of routes that in and of themselves could support an A380. So that comes down to these two questions -- do we want to introduce another aircraft type and the extra maintenance cost when a second 767 will do? and do we want to make it easier for other airlines to take our business traffic?

On very few routes is the A380 the right aircraft for an American airline right now.

With all that being said, some exec could say "we want to dominate routes X, Y, and Z so we're going to flood the market with seats" or "we want to make Topeka an international transit hub, customs be damned, so we're going to flood the market with seats" or whatever and we could see an American or Continental A380 or 748 order tomorrow.

[Edited 2010-06-06 15:38:20]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: LipeGIG
Posted 2010-06-06 15:41:56 and read 26020 times.

There's a couple of reasons in my view to be added. First is where the USA is located. Second is the fact that there's 3 big airlines (considering UA/CO as one, AA and DL) sharing the traffic, there's 6/7 hubs focusing traffic to Europe, 3/4 hubs focusing traffic to Asia, and to conclude, there's nothing new outside the United States (in the Americas) to be better connected to Asia or Europe.

Considering besides they even do not order the 77W that would be another type of what DL, UA, CO and AA already operates, the A380 would not make sense as a small number in a fleet as it's a fact that USA airlines in general can't compete with big foreign airlines that holds one single hub and can connect both sides of a network something we can't see in USA airlines (we do not expect a passenger from Japan to go to UK thru LAX or JFK).

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2010-06-06 15:52:53 and read 25836 times.

Quoting adamblang (Reply 44):
All that said, maybe Delta decides to replace its 744s with A380s tomorrow or United decides the A350 isn't big enough and places an order.


Would be something right?  Smile
Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
and once the novelty wears off (like with the Concorde) we'll see just how viable the plane is. Thomas Cook will be picking them up, reconfiguring to all steerage cattle car seating and flying tours.

Since this did not happen with the B747's (more then 1,400 sold) it is highly unlikely we will see this happening with the A380. Whether or not a US airline company will ever own an A380 is hard to predict. But if traffic pics up again, and more and more airports get slot-restricted (due to environmental reasons) the business case for VLA's grows. And also the chances for the A380 and the B748.  

[Edited 2010-06-06 15:53:35]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: hawkercaMM
Posted 2010-06-06 16:05:29 and read 25682 times.

Quoting briguy1974 (Reply 73):
In my opionion the chances of a US carrier ordering the A380 has increased over the last year with the Delta merger and the announced UA/CO partnership. It stands to reason that AA will not sit back without a merger or purchase of its own. With these new mega carriers I think you could see the need for UA to get some A380's for markets like SFO-FRA, SFO-HKG, SFO-NRT, also markets like ORD-FRA, ORD-NRT. You can see the picture I paint. Huge new mega hubs with *Alliance connections. On the Delta side you can see the same demand on markets they are serving 3-5 times a day like DTW-AMS, MSP-AMS, ATL AMS, with the sdame thing with all three and NRT.
3 years ago I thooght I would never see an A380 in a US airlines colors but now it may have to happen with the formation of these mega carriers...
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 75):
There's a couple of reasons in my view to be added. First is where the USA is located. Second is the fact that there's 3 big airlines (considering UA/CO as one, AA and DL) sharing the traffic, there's 6/7 hubs focusing traffic to Europe, 3/4 hubs focusing traffic to Asia, and to conclude, there's nothing new outside the United States (in the Americas) to be better connected to Asia or Europe.

Considering besides they even do not order the 77W that would be another type of what DL, UA, CO and AA already operates, the A380 would not make sense as a small number in a fleet as it's a fact that USA airlines in general can't compete with big foreign airlines that holds one single hub and can connect both sides of a network something we can't see in USA airlines (we do not expect a passenger from Japan to go to UK thru LAX or JFK).

There is going to be a vast growth in traffic between Asia and the US & EU and it is only just beginning.
China & India have a significant emerging urban middle class and over the next 20 years they are going to start flying.
There is predicted to be a year on year growth in air travel of 4-5%, that means double every 15-18 years.
In 20 years time air travel is predicted to be 2.2 to 2.6 times bigger.

If this level of growth - or even 1.5times - appears in the US-Asia market then an A380 order from UA, DL or AA becomes increasing likely. Direct flights from JFK, DFW, LAX, SFO, IAH, ORD to BOM, DEL, BLR, CCU, MAA and PVG, PEK, CAN, SZX, TSN, CKG, HKG are all possible A380 flights by 2030.
How will DL, UA, AA grow. Surely you can not keep adding frequency.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: airfrnt
Posted 2010-06-06 16:18:22 and read 25548 times.

Quoting Danny (Reply 10):
Looking at financial results of US majors over last decade their beliefs as to profitability of aircraft must be wrong.

Clearly, Southwest Airlines, which is the most successful and until recently, the largest airline in the world knows something about profitability. Their number 1 rule? Boeing 737s, all the way.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 17):

3. The population density in the US is not as high as, say, Japan, where B747s are used even on short domestic flights.

Even in Japan, the 767 reigns supreme still. As it and the 777 do over the Atlantic, and the 330 and others do to the Pacific nations.

The markets continue to shift away from VLA.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 20):
A.net myth # 356: "US customers prefer more frequency and non-stop flights." Apparently, people in the rest of the world have so much spare time in their hands that they are perfectly happy with a flight per day and endless connections... Now, of course, in the next thread somebody will say "US customers prefer low price over anything else". And we will all say "amen" too.

All customers prefer pricing control and convenience. The carrier with the cheapest effective competitor wins. Given a market as highly cyclical as the airline business, getting stuck with loads of seats in high priced planes that you can't sell because someone put a 757 on a route is killer. Ask Pan Am and TWA. The 747 was one of the biggest reasons why those companies failed.

At 200 orders over 10 years, it's not a matter of why don't US carriers take the A380, it's why is the world rejecting the A380 and 747-8i.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2010-06-06 16:31:21 and read 25332 times.

Quoting futureorthopod (Reply 67):

Welcome to A.net!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ml86
Posted 2010-06-06 17:26:36 and read 24732 times.

I understand that the US market is principally driven by frequency, particularly for business travelers. However fuel prices will likely continue to rise and I think a shift towards more efficient flying is inevitable. A random example, tomorrow CO will be flying 7 flights to ATL from EWR, translated to about 400 seats. Only one of these flights is on a mainline aircraft (73G). Using a 100 seat aircraft on four flights would improve the efficiency of this particular operation. A compromise will have to be reached eventually to keep fares from getting out of control, as eventually the profit potential from offering high frequency may diminish with higher fuel and labor costs.

It is plausable that regional aircraft with 50 or fewer seats may only be profitable on routes which simply cannot support mainline aircraft, but yield enough traffic to warrant some level of service.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FlyWhisperjets
Posted 2010-06-06 17:49:39 and read 24555 times.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 22):
ling to bet that any airliner investing in a couple of relative high density wide-bodies (77W-440 seats, 748-500 seats or 380-700 seats) in a 2 class configuration operating between the really heavy longer routs within the US operating on a lower frequency could make an absolute killing with the ability to undercut prices due to much lower overhead costs and a continuously high fuel price, something much less important 2 decedes ago.
Eg, NYC-LAX 5 times daily 2 in the morning, 2 in the evening and 1 between 12.00h and 17.00h ).

The 380 is tooo biggg! The thought of sitting in a tank of 600 people has to be hell.......And the thought of 600 LAer's mixed with New Yorkers sounds dangerous.....I like having 20 flights a day between LAX-NYC.....Single aisle w/AVOD rulles!!!!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FlyWhisperjets
Posted 2010-06-06 17:57:04 and read 24447 times.

Quoting KennyK (Reply 9):
itness the slow take up of the 77W by US airlines
Quoting KennyK (Reply 9):
itness the slow take up of the 77W by US airlines

There are no American passenger 77W's ....777ER/LR do just fine!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: LipeGIG
Posted 2010-06-06 18:52:49 and read 24237 times.

Quoting hawkercaMM (Reply 77):
If this level of growth - or even 1.5times - appears in the US-Asia market then an A380 order from UA, DL or AA becomes increasing likely. Direct flights from JFK, DFW, LAX, SFO, IAH, ORD to BOM, DEL, BLR, CCU, MAA and PVG, PEK, CAN, SZX, TSN, CKG, HKG are all possible A380 flights by 2030

You could be right but when i look to such long flights, i remember that:

- There always be traffic from both East and West coast.
- There always be passengers that like SkyTeam, OneWorld or Star Alliance
- There always be passengers that preffer two flights with a short rest between them

So in the end, a mix of A380 (more from foreign airlines) and B787/B777/A350 from USA airlines, looks more likely the future, in my view.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: cslusarc
Posted 2010-06-06 21:53:05 and read 23905 times.

What a long read. Like some you, I doubt that in today's environment any North American airline will ever order the A388.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):

If there was reliable and frequent 200mph train service between Chicago and New York City, you'd see a lot less ORD-LGA flights. But since there is not, air travel is the only viable option for business travelers and they require service throughout the day so you have so much flight frequency to meet it.

Well if there was frequent quality conventional 125 mph rail service in the United Sates, some shorter (125 mi/200 km or less) city pairs would need less flights.

Quoting hawkercaMM (Reply 65):
I would not be surprised by 2020 if the US as a whole will see more A380 movements than Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi combined. If not more then near polarity.

I think this is totally off. By 2020, I think there will be less than two dozen (24) daily return flights on the A380 in the US.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 71):
I would even be so bold as to say no North American (Canada, Mexico, Caribbean, or Central American) airline will be buying the A380 now, later, or even ever...
Quoting briguy1974 (Reply 73):
n my opinion the chances of a US carrier ordering the A380 has increased over the last year with the Delta merger and the announced UA/CO partnership. It stands to reason that AA will not sit back without a merger or purchase of its own.

As the market consists today with 5 network carriers, none of them would support having A380s. But if the CO - UA, and AA - US merge this would change things. The hubs in the non-top 15 metro markets (other than SLC and DEN) would need to close or downsize so capacity can migrate to the remaining hubs. (Say bye-bye to CLE, CLT, CVG and MEM!) Most of the 50-seaters will need to graveyard. DL and the new UA will need to start to deploy 744s more from JFK/EWR before this happens. (Note: DL doesn't fly 744s on transatlantic missions to Europe from JFK, and TLV doesn't count.)

But in 10 years, I do see average hull size in the North America will rise. If UA and CO do merge, you expect see 764s flying between EWR and LAX after being displaced by 787s from flying intercontinentally.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: XaraB
Posted 2010-06-06 22:49:50 and read 23784 times.

Quoting adamblang (Reply 74):
looks more attractive than buying, then flying A380s which might lose passengers to airlines with higher frequency and smaller planes.

As you say, this is very reasonable in today's traffic climate. But assuming American carriers can grab a fair share of worldwide traffic growth, one will arrive at a point where adding frequencies is no longer physically possible (gate space, delays, congestion etc.). So the alternative left is bigger equipment: today's CRJ/Embraer will probably be a 737/A32X tomorrow, ditto 767/A330 -> 787/A350 and maybe even 777/747 -> A380. If the American traveller observes about the same frequency as before, he/she doesn't care enough if they get on a bigger plane to stop travelling by air...

Quoting hawkercaMM (Reply 77):
There is going to be a vast growth in traffic between Asia and the US & EU and it is only just beginning.
China & India have a significant emerging urban middle class and over the next 20 years they are going to start flying.
There is predicted to be a year on year growth in air travel of 4-5%, that means double every 15-18 years.
In 20 years time air travel is predicted to be 2.2 to 2.6 times bigger.

  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-07 00:34:48 and read 23663 times.

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 84):
I think this is totally off. By 2020, I think there will be less than two dozen (24) daily return flights on the A380 in the US.

Are you sure? AF,BA, LH, Korean, EK, Qatar, SQ, MH, QF , VS all will start (more) services in a few years to places like JFK, Chicago, LAX, SFO, MIA, ATL.. A380 #30 was delivered last week, another 170 on order & 60 options. A full recovery will take place in the next 5 years..

[Edited 2010-06-07 00:54:54]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Cerecl
Posted 2010-06-07 00:36:51 and read 23629 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
Compare the A380 to 787 order book to see where the market says the future is headed

As Zeke pointed out, absolute sale numbers are only part of the story. You would expect A380s to sell less than 787s, just as you would expect 787s to sell less than 737s. This says something about the size of the markets these planes serve, but not where the future is headed. An analogy would be Toyotas, Hondas and BMW/Mercedes. You would expect Toyotas and Hondas to sell much more, but you can't deny BMW/Mercedes are very much part of the future. (Note I attach no implication to the prestige of the aircrafts).

Quoting merlot (Reply 37):
if Oz were next door to America like Canada is, QF would have no A380s either.

And if the US were where Australia is, I think you might see a few more A380s ordered by US airlines.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
The bigger part of why planes are bought is, like all buying decisions made by humans, outside of the realm of anyting you can objectively quantify - like fuel efficiency on longer sector lengths

You seem to be trying to convince us that airlines make decisions not by looking at projected operating profitability, but by some kind of fluffy stuff that is vaguely related to passenger perception. I think you will find that it is a difficult position to argue for.

Quoting merlot (Reply 50):
Americans are indifferent to the A380

This is not grocery shopping. If any US airlines think the A380 are going to make them a ton of money I doubt they would refrain from buying it, just because their customers are "indifferent". A large trunk of any airline passengers is "indifferent" to ALL models of aircraft. Should these airlines stop buying any aircrafts?

Quoting merlot (Reply 62):
but as long as you can not see the invalidity of objective quantifiable data as the sole (or even major) reason for A380s success or failure,

The problem with your argument is that you did not put forward a reasonable explanation as to why US airlines did not order A380s. Maybe I missed something, but all I see is along the lines of "US airlines did not order A380s, and it is not objective." Unless you think airlines executives buy airplanes based on a whim, I find it difficult to follow this line of argument.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2010-06-07 02:01:21 and read 23424 times.

While I don't expect any inner US application of a VLA in near terms, the routes to Japan, China, and without a third runway also London may require them.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-07 02:26:16 and read 23355 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 64):
You can look back in history and look at events that took place in the 1970s and 80s with one US airline after another shedding their 747 fleet. Delta, Continental, National, American all said good-bye to the 747, while carriers like Pan Am and TWA continually reduced their 747 fleets as time went on.

The poster I was replying said that the 747 had a lot to do with the troubles those airlines went through. You still haven't proved it. UA and NW kept flying many 747s. Did they fare better or worse than DL, CO, National, American, etc? I don't know.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
Zeke, you obviuosly have a strong Airbus loyalty and dislike for Boeing (and probably America in general as well), so I will let you have the last word on this and wish you happiness in your crusade!

I'm not Zeke, but I still take exception from this sentence. If you have arguments to defend your point of view, let's hear them. Otherwise, please, refrain from ad hominen statements. They discredit you far from than they discredit Zeke.

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 78):
Ask Pan Am and TWA. The 747 was one of the biggest reasons why those companies failed.

Do you have any proof of that? And what was the reason National, Eastern, Braniff, etc. failed? Surely not the 747...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2010-06-07 04:37:47 and read 23067 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
One manufacturer tried to lead the market where it thought it should be and the other responded to market demands

- In 2000 the market did not demand a Sonic Cruiser from Boeing. I see no Airbus product that tried to "lead" the market as much as the sonic liner.

- In 2000 the market did also not demand a new efficient medium twin from Airbus. At that time their A330 was the leading product. It was not their turn to update the offered product in that segment. E.g. in 2020 nobody will demand from Boeing a new 250 seat long range aircraft.

- In 2000 the market probably did demand a new efficient medium twin from Boeing (it was clearly their turn). Yet it took Boeing some years until they understood the message. Had Boeing started with the dreamliner in 2000 the A330 would be history now.

But I don't see customer demand to be exceptionally satisfied by the 787 program. Late conception and delayed execution. If you consider that the 787 eventually adressed the breach caused by the A330 in Boeing's lineup you can argue that Boeing's answer took almost 20 years to take shape. No example of quickly and adequately answering customers demands IMO!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: maxter
Posted 2010-06-07 04:42:05 and read 23058 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
Zeke, you obviuosly have a strong Airbus loyalty and dislike for Boeing (and probably America in general as well), so I will let you have the last word on this and wish you happiness in your crusade!

You really have to loosen up that headband mate... It's causing you some problems.

FWIW everybody here has their favourites, it's allowed. There is no reason to extrapolate that into a mythical dislike of a particular nationality as you have asserted. I think Zeke is owed an apology...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: sydaircargo
Posted 2010-06-07 05:39:16 and read 22912 times.

forget the US domestic market for once, what about the International lines? is frequency requested here as well?
is there a need for AA to fly 4 times a day ORD-LHR and return? an A380 could free a lot of slots in LHR

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-06-07 05:47:50 and read 22880 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
Zeke, you obviuosly have a strong Airbus loyalty and dislike for Boeing (and probably America in general as well), so I will let you have the last word on this and wish you happiness in your crusade!

And you're trying to convince us that it is Zeke who has the agenda?   

Tell you what.
Have a go at me too for my agenda, dislike of Boeing, delight in 787 cancellations and hatred of all things American. You might as well.

Zeke's posts raised a number of points which you have clearly elected to ignore

Whether those cancellations gives me (or Zeke) pleasure or otherwise is irrelevant.
There are clearly a lot of external factors which make the assertion that the market has turned its back on VLA's completely, and is ONLY interested in medium sized twins, based on sales to date, flawed at best.

That was Zeke's point, and he is right to make it. And no, he will get no more pleasure from 787 cancellations than I do   

Quoting maxter (Reply 91):
I think Zeke is owed an apology...

Indeed

Quoting FlyWhisperjets (Reply 81):
The thought of sitting in a tank of 600 people has to be hell

In what way?
600 people on an A380 equates to approximately 200 people in a 767-300, or 350 people in a 777-300 on a space basis (or 240 people in a 787-8, which is supposedly 1/2 way between the 8-abreast configuration and the 9-abreast configuration seat counts..).
With only this difference - the A380 passengers will enjoy a much quieter environment, a smoother ride, and better cabin pressure and humidity (787 excepted).
Some tank  

Rgds

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-07 05:50:23 and read 22845 times.

US carriers don't order the A380 because they would find them useless in application to their business models. Like it or not citizens of the world, the United States of America IS an exceptional case -- we have the world's most advanced and most deregulated air market. With dwindling exception, USA based air carriers can fly wherever they want to, whenever they want to, as often as they want to. This reality -- which does not necessarily exist to the same degree in other major air markets -- works strongly against the acquisition of additional VLA aircraft and especially the Airbus A380.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-07 06:26:54 and read 22694 times.

I'd say it's simply to do with popluation density and country size (allowing mutiple hubs).

I still think there's room for them accross the pacific in the future. Whethere that's enough to justify an order, i don't know.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: CYatUK
Posted 2010-06-07 06:43:34 and read 22612 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 94):
This reality -- which does not necessarily exist to the same degree in other major air markets -- works strongly against the acquisition of additional VLA aircraft and especially the Airbus A380.

The same degree of deregulation applies for flights within the EU where any EU airline can fly any route they want within the EU yet there are services operated by a/c that do not belong to the single aisle families.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Cerecl
Posted 2010-06-07 06:47:42 and read 22596 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 94):
USA based air carriers can fly wherever they want to, whenever they want to, as often as they want to. This reality -- which does not necessarily exist to the same degree in other major air markets -- works strongly against the acquisition of additional VLA aircraft and especially the Airbus A380.

While not disagreeing with some parts of your post, it can be argued that Trans-Pacific operations has the potential to support A380. Also, IMHO, the fragmentation is perhaps what distinguishes US airline industry the most, not the geographical feature of the US.

[Edited 2010-06-07 06:50:53]

[Edited 2010-06-07 06:51:13]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-07 06:52:55 and read 22549 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 95):
I'd say it's simply to do with popluation density and country size (allowing mutiple hubs).

That's partly what I was referring to in calling the USA an exceptional case.

Most major world economies have exactly ONE major longhaul gateway (and by major, I mean more than just 1 or 2 daily services, I'm referring to a diverse spread of longhaul flying by 1 or more Top 50 air carriers) for longhaul air services, some have two, and the jury is out on whether Germany and Japan can sustain three (trends say Germany yes, Japan no). Therefore, consideration of a VLA may be in order by airlines of those countries because of the manner in which the market is concentrated.

The United States has BOS, NYC, WAS, ATL, MIA, DFW, CLT, IAH, ORD, MSP, DTW, LAX, SFO, and SEA as major longhaul gateways, and with dwindling exception, longhaul flying can be adjusted from any of those gateways at will. There's no need for a US airline to have an A380 when additional capacity can be added in the form of an additional frequency, the extension of longhaul flying to another of the gateways listed above, or -- in the current and evolving marketplace setup -- the use of capacity from a foreign alliance partner (heck, using one of THEIR A380s if such capacity is really necessary).

Those who try to make some argument that the USA carriers are not looking to the future fail to realize America's longhaul flying future - much like our recent past -- lies in the strengthening of existing gateways, and the creation of new ones as population and economic demands warrant. Again, A380s really don't much to move the ball forward in this regard, certainly not to the point that USA carriers should order them.

[Edited 2010-06-07 06:59:43]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-07 06:58:46 and read 22531 times.

Quoting CYatUK (Reply 96):
The same degree of deregulation applies for flights within the EU where any EU airline can fly any route they want within the EU yet there are services operated by a/c that do not belong to the single aisle families.

And such is the case in the United States. We have domestic widebody flights, too.

That said, I'm referring more to deregulation in terms of international flying -- the United States laps the field in terms of the pervasiveness of Open Skies Agreements.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 97):
Also, IMHO, the fragmentation is perhaps what distinguishes US airline industry the most, not the geographical feature of the US.

The fragmentation of the USA longhaul air market comes in large part due to our geography and population distribution.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-07 07:05:45 and read 22501 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 95):
I still think there's room for them accross the pacific in the future. Whethere that's enough to justify an order, i don't know.

The possibility of USA carriers using A380s on TPAC is being greatly undermined by the opening of access to Tokyo International Airport (Haneda). Over time, USA carriers will have to adapt their Asia strategies to appeal to the separate and divergent needs of Tokyo O&D pax and pax heading elsewhere in Asia in a manner that couldn't be done before. This argues against the use of A380s by Delta and United, and instead using combos of 747s/777s/787s/350s to service the split flows of NRT and HND.

In simplistic terms, air market fragmentation is the enemy of A380 sales, and USA air carriers operate in the world's most fragmented market. Hence, no A380 orders.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-07 07:07:45 and read 22485 times.

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
I would say it's for a few reasons. Qantas, British airways, air France, singapore etc don't exactly have a lot of domestic ground to cover compared to the US.
Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
Qantas for example depend on long haul routes which is why they need planes like the A380.

Uhhm....., no. Qantas, covers a domestic market roughly the same physical dimensions as the USA and serves 59 different DOMESTIC destinations with a fleet of medium and regional jets and props. Yes, it is much smaller in volume than the US, but very large as a domestic operation with a similar geographic reach as the US airlines, contrary to the image of Qantas in the minds of most Americans. The domestic destinations and fleet below tell a very different story from that above...

AUSTRALIA – 59
ACT (1) - Canberra
New South Wales (12) - Albury - Armidale - Ballina/Byron Bay
- Coffs Harbour - Dubbo - Lord Howe Island
- Moree - Newcastle - Port Macquarie
- Sydney - Tamworth - Wagga Wagga
Northern Territory (4) - Alice Springs - Ayers Rock-Uluru - Darwin
- Gove
Queensland (25) - Barcaldine - Biloela - Blackall
- Blackwater - Brisbane - Bundaberg
- Cairns - Charleville - Cloncurry
- Emerald - Gladstone - Gold Coast
- Hamilton Island - Hervey Bay - Horn Island
- Longreach - Mackay - Maroochydore
- Moranbah - Mount Isa - Proserpine
- Rockhampton - Roma - Townsville
- Weipa
South Australia (3) - Adelaide - Olympic Dam* - Port Lincoln
Tasmania (3) - Devonport - Hobart - Launceston
Victoria (3) - Avalon - Melbourne - Mildura
Western Australia (8) - Broome - Kalgoorlie - Karratha
- Kununurra - Newman - Paraburdoo
- Perth - Port Hedland

QANTAS GROUP FLEET At 1 March 2010, the Qantas Group operated a total passenger fleet of 246
aircraft.
Qantas and QantasLink (191)
- Airbus A380-800 6 - Boeing 737-800 41 - Boeing 717-200 11
- Boeing 747-400ER 6 - Boeing 737-400 21 - Bombardier Dash 8 21
- Boeing 747-400 21 - Airbus A330-300 10 - Bombardier Q400 21
- Boeing 767-300 26 - Airbus A330-200 7
Jetstar and Jetstar Asia (55)
- Airbus A320-200 42 - Airbus A321-200 6 - Airbus A330-200 7

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-07 07:18:22 and read 22460 times.

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 5):
US airlines also have a lot of competition with each other compared to someone like British Airways. US customers simply want more frequency and nonstop flights than the A380 can provide

This is the usual American argument against VLA's. I don't buy it for these reasons:

- It confuses the logic of domestic short haul and international long haul, applying the preference for frequent direct short haul flights (where Australian and European customers are of course the same in this respect) to long haul international flights where the logic is much less valid.
- It explains why VLA's are not used domestically by US airlines, but neither QF nor anyone else are using VLA's for domestic short haul an any serious basis.
- It seems to imply US airlines type strategy should only be governed by domestic requirements and ignore long haul dynamics
- It always avoids explaining why US airlines should be different from everyone else on the economics of long haul travel.
- It avoids the final reason: for years they have not had the money to invest even if they wanted to for long haul operations: e.g. transatlantic / transpacific

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-07 07:23:45 and read 22433 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 100):
The possibility of USA carriers using A380s on TPAC is being greatly undermined by the opening of access to Tokyo International Airport (Haneda). Over time, USA carriers will have to adapt their Asia strategies to appeal to the separate and divergent needs of Tokyo O&D pax and pax heading elsewhere in Asia in a manner that couldn't be done before. This argues against the use of A380s by Delta and United, and instead using combos of 747s/777s/787s/350s to service the split flows of NRT and HND.

In simplistic terms, air market fragmentation is the enemy of A380 sales, and USA air carriers operate in the world's most fragmented market. Hence, no A380 orders.

One airport won't drastically change things. TYO is quite close to the US anyway.

The Pacific is dominated by mega-cities on (HKG/PEK/PVG/SFO/LAX) both sides and with this arrangement i'm skeptical of the extent the market can fragment. In addition flight lengths to China and below, limit the value of frequencies. As the economy grows in the part of the world i can see a stronger need for A380s across the pacific, it's quite different to transatlantic routes.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: sydaircargo
Posted 2010-06-07 07:59:46 and read 22314 times.

europeans do not have a "domestic" market . lets call europe domestic in terms of comparing distances to the US
LH e.g. has 722 Aircraft in total in all of there fleets (LX,OS,SN etc. incl.) and still they fly the A380 internationaly.



i think money is the actual issue that keeps a UA and DL from buying VLA´s.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 102):
- It avoids the final reason: for years they have not had the money to invest even if they wanted to for long haul operations: e.g. transatlantic / transpacific

open up the US airline industrie to oversees companies might be one option to keep them out of chapter 11 for good.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-06-07 08:09:36 and read 22275 times.

I'd like to see JFK, EWR privatized and given pricing freedom and then see if no US airline order VLAs.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 102):
- It seems to imply US airlines type strategy should only be governed by domestic requirements and ignore long haul dynamics

There is some truth to this argument, however. Look at Delta and their extensive use of 767s in the domestic market and you'll see why they like the idea of having an aircraft that is more flexible and can be used anywhere. As your next bullet point showed, A380s aren't really used for anything less than long-haul.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2010-06-07 08:38:16 and read 22130 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 90):
Had Boeing started with the dreamliner in 2000 the A330 would be history now.

Had boeing started with the dreamliner in 2000, they would have had worst production issues. Even the 787 require technology to catch up to reallity.

bikerthai

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: pnwtraveler
Posted 2010-06-07 08:41:20 and read 22129 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 102):
- It confuses the logic of domestic short haul and international long haul, applying the preference for frequent direct short haul flights (where Australian and European customers are of course the same in this respect) to long haul international flights where the logic is much less valid.

Logic has little to do with customer preferences and purchasing patterns. IF passengers were voting with their bums in seats, according to logic, 747's wouldn't have been removed from so many routes and replaced with smaller aircraft. Airlines clearly know when the bread and butter business travelers migrate to other airlines for convenience. They do extensive surveys and tracking of patterns.

Rather than market driven choices, some seem to feel on ANet (mostly non-North Americans) that a socialistic type decision should be made and imposed on consumers. In other words, if you want to fly this route you can only leave on one of these two flights on a VLA. First thing a competitor would do is keep frequency to undermine that airline with the schedule conscious consumer.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2010-06-07 09:35:19 and read 21956 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
and once the novelty wears off (like with the Concorde) we'll see just how viable the plane is.

I don't know. But do you really think this is still an issue? More than 2 1/2 years after the first revenue flight? I doubt it. Despite some a.netters, who will check in parallel which airplane will be on which route, the majority of the passengers simply look for the lowest ticket price or they ask a travel agent to do the same. Later, when printing out the e-ticket or when leaving the travel agent's office they will eventually suddenty say "Ohh, I will fly with an A 380" or they will just realize it when arriving at the gate and looking out of the window.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-07 09:36:03 and read 21964 times.

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 107):
Rather than market driven choices, some seem to feel on ANet (mostly non-North Americans) that a socialistic type decision should be made and imposed on consumers. In other words, if you want to fly this route you can only leave on one of these two flights on a VLA.

I'm not sure what this is a response to, but it could not be my post. I distinguished domestic and long haul and agree with the US rationale on domestic frequency and direct services as I also said Oz and European passengers do. If however you are on a 15hr+ international flight, frequency is less of an issue than price. Economics are better at unit cost level with a larger volume over which to spread the fixed costs. There is no need for patronising references to socialist tendencies. There is nothing spectacularly successful about said Nth American trend on long haul routes. The airlines that ARE making the money on such routes also happen to be the ones who can both afford and have taken the option to acquire VLA's: facts which are more compelling than sour rhetoric.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: zeke
Posted 2010-06-07 09:42:25 and read 21940 times.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
Yes, of course they do, thats why I quote net orders, which includes cancelations - but your happiness in Boeing cancellations announces your agenda.

I did not express a "happiness in Boeing cancellations". I simply developed a lexical semantic to express the antonym of your comment.

I have flown the 744 for several years, and enjoyed her very much. I apologise for being knowledgeable in both Boeing and Airbus products and taking a long term active interest in the industry.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
each manufacturer devoted virtually all their resources to one new project each in the last 10 years

No, both have produced numerous products in the past decade, notable products on the Boeing side would be the 77L, 77W, 737 AW&C, KC-767, P-8A. Likewise EADS has developed numerous civil and military models.

Quoting merlot (Reply 68):
if you believe the market is the judge of success then the market has spoken

That is like trying to judge the 747 success based upon what it achieved in 1973, 40 years after the 747 EIS it is still part of our industry.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 71):
Also, even if all the US passenger airlines had expressed interest, absolutely none of them ordered a single one.

That is correct as of today, but I think the A380 will be around for a long time yet, my reply was in response to the statement "no American interest".

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 71):
And all of them have ordered longhaul aircraft.

True, however if you look at their operations, they are skewed toward short and medium haul operations, a true long haul aircraft is an overkill for the majority of their operations.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 71):

I would even be so bold as to say no North American (Canada, Mexico, Caribbean, or Central American) airline will be buying the A380 now, later, or even ever...

I do not share the same view, however I have an optimistic long term view of the North American economies and resulting growth in international traffic.

If the North American economies do become further depressed in the long term we will not see much investment into any new equipment as the growth in international traffic will not follow, and I would share your view.

Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
ILFC is not an American airline as you know

I realise that, they are however generally referred to by Boeing and Airbus as being a US customer.

Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
look at the problems they've had trying to operate out of New York... today a 380, tomorrow a 777 then back again

In the mean time the A380 was also easily redeployed, they were not parked.

Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
he A380 is a lot of money to sit on the tarmac just in-case there are enough passengers to make the flight profitable

With maintenance costs and fuel prices increasing, the number of passengers that one would need to break even (direct operating cost) on an 744 would be very close to the same number breaking even in the A380.

I have not seen any suggestion from current A380 operators that they are not making money with their investment.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-07 09:46:42 and read 21912 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 102):
- It seems to imply US airlines type strategy should only be governed by domestic requirements and ignore long haul dynamics

US air carriers derive a far higher proportion of their revenues from domestic flying than legacies elsewhere in the world.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 102):
- It always avoids explaining why US airlines should be different from everyone else on the economics of long haul travel.

US airlines are different because they are based in the world's most competitive airline market. As result of this, they start out with a both lower cost base and a a lower revenue base than many legacies elsewhere in the world (especially in comparison to European legacies), and that drives many of the decisions you see from them, such as the rapacious drive to gain a revenue advantage through superior schedules and the installation of top-end longhaul premium cabins.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 102):
- It avoids the final reason: for years they have not had the money to invest even if they wanted to for long haul operations: e.g. transatlantic / transpacific

For a few years the USA legacies were hindered by a lack of capital, but at present I think they've made a smarter move than many of the (non-UK) European legacies by moving their longhaul premium products to the high-end of the market through the installation of flat beds in business class. The decision of AF-KLM and Lufthansa to stick with previous-generation Business Class cabin products on new deliveries (including the A380) could come back to bite them bigtime.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 103):
The Pacific is dominated by mega-cities on (HKG/PEK/PVG/SFO/LAX) both sides and with this arrangement i'm skeptical of the extent the market can fragment.

The TPAC market has already fragmented significantly on the USA side. I mean, one of the first four USA cities to get nonstop access to Japan's biggest airport is DETROIT! I don't say this to pooh-pooh or rehash the HND allocation decision, but rather to point out that the Pacific is no longer dominated by LAX/SFO on the USA side.

Quoting sydaircargo (Reply 104):
LH e.g. has 722 Aircraft in total in all of there fleets (LX,OS,SN etc. incl.) and still they fly the A380 internationaly.

It makes sense for Lufthansa to consider using VLAs because again, the German longhaul market is concentrated quite strongly on FRA and MUC (with the jury still out on DUS, but early indications that it can be grown over time into a third major gateway). UA and DL aren't not so limited, and thus don't need to seriously consider A380s.

[Edited 2010-06-07 09:48:21]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ScottB
Posted 2010-06-07 10:41:31 and read 21765 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 89):
The poster I was replying said that the 747 had a lot to do with the troubles those airlines went through. You still haven't proved it. UA and NW kept flying many 747s.

UA (with the acquisition of PA's Pacific route authorities) and NW were unique from the mid-1980's through the mid-2000's in that route authorities between the U.S. and most East Asian nations were severely restricted. With liberalization of air service agreements between the U.S. and several East Asian nations, along with the opening of a second runway at NRT, we are indeed seeing fragmentation in U.S.-Asia markets. There are available U.S.-China frequencies today. Two of UA's three daily frequencies at PEK are operated by the 777, not the 744, while nearly two-thirds of UA's departures from NRT are operated by the 777 instead of the 744.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 101):
Qantas, covers a domestic market roughly the same physical dimensions as the USA and serves 59 different DOMESTIC destinations with a fleet of medium and regional jets and props. Yes, it is much smaller in volume than the US, but very large as a domestic operation with a similar geographic reach as the US airlines, contrary to the image of Qantas in the minds of most Americans.

59 domestic destinations is peanuts compared to what the U.S. network carriers do. Even a relatively small network hub like MEM has non-stop service to over 80 domestic destinations.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I actually believe that 10 - 20 A380s (or 748i's) could be effectively used within the US - principally between major East Cost and West Coast cities (New York - Los Angeles, etc).

This model has been tried before; it was called Tower Air. They had cheap, cheap, cheap fares on old 747's on routes like JFK-LAX/SFO/SJU/LAS/MIA/FLL/TLV/ATH. They also had abysmal customer service. They needed the cheap fares to drive traffic; it's entirely unclear whether they would have been able to fill the planes with a better product at a higher price.

Quoting Danny (Reply 10):
Looking at financial results of US majors over last decade their beliefs as to profitability of aircraft must be wrong.

The most profitable U.S. major carrier of the past decade (not to mention the past four decades) flies no widebody aircraft whatsoever. Want to try that one again? One of the most profitable European carriers flies exactly zero widebodies. Care to explain that?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 90):
In 2000 the market did not demand a Sonic Cruiser from Boeing. I see no Airbus product that tried to "lead" the market as much as the sonic liner.

To Boeing's credit, they also killed the project. But to some degree, the Sonic Cruiser concept was led by the market, in that for carriers with high labor costs, in an environment with low to moderate fuel prices, the SC likely would have lowered the carriers' costs.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 103):
The Pacific is dominated by mega-cities on (HKG/PEK/PVG/SFO/LAX) both sides and with this arrangement i'm skeptical of the extent the market can fragment. In addition flight lengths to China and below, limit the value of frequencies.

The market most certainly can fragment in that several hubs will end up competing for traffic at both ends; witness the rise of ICN as a viable hub. It's also likely that we'll see Asian carriers expand from their hubs into smaller U.S. cities or into alliance partner hubs; i.e. ANA's plans to launch NRT-DEN or Hainan/Grand China's intent to fly to BOS. Delta's addition of SLC-NRT also points in this direction.

With many seats on trans-Pacific flights being sold at deeply discounted consolidator fares (particularly from the West Coast), it's not clear that the U.S. carriers want to or should dump even more seats onto the market, despite the potential for lower seat-mile costs with the A380.

Quoting sydaircargo (Reply 92):
is frequency requested here as well?
is there a need for AA to fly 4 times a day ORD-LHR and return? an A380 could free a lot of slots in LHR

If high-fare passengers prefer the convenience of four daily trips, then yes.

Quoting ml86 (Reply 80):
A random example, tomorrow CO will be flying 7 flights to ATL from EWR, translated to about 400 seats. Only one of these flights is on a mainline aircraft (73G). Using a 100 seat aircraft on four flights would improve the efficiency of this particular operation.

It might be more efficient, but not necessarily more profitable. ATL-EWR on CO competes with 11 daily Delta flights on the same airport pair, not to mention Delta's hourly LGA-ATL service.

Quoting hawkercaMM (Reply 77):
China & India have a significant emerging urban middle class and over the next 20 years they are going to start flying.
There is predicted to be a year on year growth in air travel of 4-5%, that means double every 15-18 years.
In 20 years time air travel is predicted to be 2.2 to 2.6 times bigger.

I'm not convinced that the Chinese Communist Party wants to see greater international mobility for their middle class; this works against their efforts to control the information reaching their people. There's also less in the way of common cultural and familial ties than has historically existed between the U.S. and Europe.

Quoting keesje (Reply 86):
Are you sure? AF,BA, LH, Korean, EK, Qatar, SQ, MH, QF , VS all will start (more) services in a few years to places like JFK, Chicago, LAX, SFO, MIA, ATL.. A380 #30 was delivered last week, another 170 on order & 60 options. A full recovery will take place in the next 5 years..

But try to enumerate the possible logical A380 routes for all these carriers to the U.S.:
AF: CDG-JFK, CDG-ATL, CDG-LAX
BA: LHR-JFK, LHR-MIA, LHR-ORD, LHR-LAX, LHR-DFW
KE: ICN-LAX, ICN-ATL, ICN-SFO
EK: DXB-JFK, DXB-LAX, DXB-SFO, DXB-IAH
QR: DOH-JFK
SQ: SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO
MH: KUL-LAX
QF: SYD-LAX, SYD-SFO, MEL-LAX, BNE-LAX
VS will probably not take their ordered A380's given the end of Bermuda II.

I just don't see that set of routes (not all of which will see A380 simultaneously) amounting to over 50 daily A380 round-trips, even in 2020.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2010-06-07 10:52:52 and read 21741 times.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 112):
But try to enumerate the possible logical A380 routes for all these carriers to the U.S.:
AF: CDG-JFK, CDG-ATL, CDG-LAX
BA: LHR-JFK, LHR-MIA, LHR-ORD, LHR-LAX, LHR-DFW
KE: ICN-LAX, ICN-ATL, ICN-SFO
EK: DXB-JFK, DXB-LAX, DXB-SFO, DXB-IAH
QR: DOH-JFK
SQ: SIN-LAX, SIN-SFO
MH: KUL-LAX
QF: SYD-LAX, SYD-SFO, MEL-LAX, BNE-LAX
VS will probably not take their ordered A380's given the end of Bermuda II.

You forgot a small local air taxi company called Lufthansa in that list  
LH: FRA-JFK, FRA-MIA

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-07 11:40:22 and read 21649 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 111):
the installation of top-end longhaul premium cabins.
Quoting avek00 (Reply 111):
For a few years the USA legacies were hindered by a lack of capital, but at present I think they've made a smarter move than many of the (non-UK) European legacies by moving their longhaul premium products to the high-end of the market through the installation of flat beds in business class. The decision of AF-KLM and Lufthansa to stick with previous-generation Business Class cabin products on new deliveries (including the A380) could come back to bite them bigtime.

Until very recently, all US airlines were 3 generations behind in J and are not serious contenders as "high end of the market" in premium cabins. That has changed with UAL's new J and several other 'hard' products. Unfortunately, service standards, according to the available reviews, have not moved substantially.

I do not fly AF-KLM or LH often and agree that KL and LH's J products are not leaders in hard product. AF has moved to a virtually fully flat J on the majority of new cabins, but still have some angled lie flat.

The airlines in focus were SQ, EK and QF also, who all have fully flat beds in J, so why the focus on "non-UK European legacies"? I agree that LH and KL, perhaps AF better be careful with premium traffic, but are probably too sure of their direct O&D advantage from their respective hubs to worry for now.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 112):
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 101):
Qantas, covers a domestic market roughly the same physical dimensions as the USA and serves 59 different DOMESTIC destinations with a fleet of medium and regional jets and props. Yes, it is much smaller in volume than the US, but very large as a domestic operation with a similar geographic reach as the US airlines, contrary to the image of Qantas in the minds of most Americans.

59 domestic destinations is peanuts compared to what the U.S. network carriers do. Even a relatively small network hub like MEM has non-stop service to over 80 domestic destinations.

Please try to follow the context of the thread. I am responding to the claim above that QF DO NOT have a significant domestic network to support. Please look at the fact sheet I provided to see that its domestic operations are a huge part OF ITS overall business. Also, those 59 destinations are distributed over the same geographical area as the United States occupies. Relative to ITS OWN operation, domestic traffic is a huge percentage, contradicting the claim above. My point stands. This is not a "mine's bigger than yours" discussion.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-07 11:54:03 and read 21612 times.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 112):
The most profitable U.S. major carrier of the past decade (not to mention the past four decades) flies no widebody aircraft whatsoever. Want to try that one again? One of the most profitable European carriers flies exactly zero widebodies. Care to explain that?

Irrelevant examples: WN does not fly internationally, FR does not fly intercontinental. If they did, they would fly widebodies.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 113):
LH: FRA-JFK, FRA-MIA

Add FRA-SFO.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-07 11:58:07 and read 21590 times.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 112):
The market most certainly can fragment in that several hubs will end up competing for traffic at both ends; witness the rise of ICN as a viable hub. It's also likely that we'll see Asian carriers expand from their hubs into smaller U.S. cities or into alliance partner hubs; i.e. ANA's plans to launch NRT-DEN or Hainan/Grand China's intent to fly to BOS. Delta's addition of SLC-NRT also points in this direction.

With many seats on trans-Pacific flights being sold at deeply discounted consolidator fares (particularly from the West Coast), it's not clear that the U.S. carriers want to or should dump even more seats onto the market, despite the potential for lower seat-mile costs with the A380.
Quoting avek00 (Reply 111):
The TPAC market has already fragmented significantly on the USA side. I mean, one of the first four USA cities to get nonstop access to Japan's biggest airport is DETROIT! I don't say this to pooh-pooh or rehash the HND allocation decision, but rather to point out that the Pacific is no longer dominated by LAX/SFO on the USA side.

Before i say anything. No, NH have said nothing about flying to DEN. That is a current top 10 A.net myth. DEN have said plenty about attracting NH to DEN.

You have both told me routes to TYO. Even though i focussed on places beyond TYO. TYO is fairly fragmented anyway, partly because it is the first stop in East Asia, it has a very strong economy and is a hub/focus city to 2 major US airlines - so it's always going to be able to fragment.

Lower yeilding routes at longer ranges will have the tendancy towards larger planes, fewer frequencies and fewer destination. True, lower yeilding is less attractive, but not everywhere can be a TYO/LON/FRA/NYC.

In addition i am speaking with the outlook of over 10 years. Places like China's economy are growing, but i still feel the gravity and international business of PEK, PVG and perhaps CAN there is far too strong to see any fragmentation here beyond them.

So i whilst i'm not saying a US airlines will order an A380, i don't think it is out of the question.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ScottB
Posted 2010-06-07 12:22:26 and read 21503 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 114):
I am responding to the claim above that QF DO NOT have a significant domestic network to support. Please look at the fact sheet I provided to see that its domestic operations are a huge part OF ITS overall business. Also, those 59 destinations are distributed over the same geographical area as the United States occupies. Relative to ITS OWN operation, domestic traffic is a huge percentage, contradicting the claim above. My point stands. This is not a "mine's bigger than yours" discussion.

Compared to the U.S. carriers, QF's domestic traffic is a small percentage of their overall business. For the last fiscal year (2008-2009), the combined QF & JQ domestic operations amounted to just under one-third (33.1%) of Qantas Group's total traffic. I personally don't consider 33% to be a "huge percentage." By contrast, Delta's domestic traffic in 2009 was 61.4% of their total traffic. Or as another analogy, the combined domestic operations of QF and JQ are about 20% smaller than JetBlue by traffic and one-fifth the size of Southwest.

While QF most certainly has larger domestic operations than many airlines, they are not the predominant component of their business, and rightly so given that their home market is modest in size with a robust domestic competitor.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 113):
You forgot a small local air taxi company called Lufthansa in that list
LH: FRA-JFK, FRA-MIA

True, but even including LH and routes like FRA-ORD, FRA-IAD, and FRA-IAH, it would still be extremely difficult to get over 50 daily A380 round-trips.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2010-06-07 12:40:47 and read 21432 times.

Quoting sydaircargo (Reply 92):
forget the US domestic market for once, what about the International lines? is frequency requested here as well?
is there a need for AA to fly 4 times a day ORD-LHR and return? an A380 could free a lot of slots in LHR

IF AA were to operate teh A380 it would be to South America, Brazil and EZE. From Miami to EZE AA has 2 777 within 2 hours, Back is teh same deral. But going to LHR is different because going to LHR almost all US departures are evening so planes do leave with an hour or less if 3 or 4 flights daily are involoved. But coming back to teh USA Departures can be spaced out all day with one flight evey two hours like AA does from LHR to JFK.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ScottB
Posted 2010-06-07 12:43:10 and read 21419 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 116):
Before i say anything. No, NH have said nothing about flying to DEN. That is a current top 10 A.net myth. DEN have said plenty about attracting NH to DEN.
http://www.metrodenver.org/blog-tags...n-Denver-international-flight.html

Quote:
New ANA president Shinichiro Ito mentioned that he will make sure to introduce the 787 when Haneda and Narita airports expand in 2010. The 787 is the next generation of Boeing mid-size planes. Ito would like to serve new international destinations using the 787 in Asia, Europe, and America.

"We thought about studying new service to Denver, Moscow, and New Delhi," an ANA spokesperson stated.

Now, I will be happy to amend to "studied" ANA service between NRT and DEN.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 116):
You have both told me routes to TYO. Even though i focussed on places beyond TYO.

Most boosters of the A380 have held up NRT and LHR as being the poster children of restricted airports that will require the capacity of the A380, so it is entirely appropriate to address fragmentation of routes to and from Tokyo. Moreover, the development of competing hubs like ICN, PEK, and PVG will mean that HND and NRT will likely depend more on O&D traffic, rather than connecting traffic, in the future.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 116):
Places like China's economy are growing, but i still feel the gravity and international business of PEK, PVG and perhaps CAN there is far too strong to see any fragmentation here beyond them.

Is there any doubt that the Chinese government, if it determines such a course to be expedient, will make certain that the airports of PEK, PVG, and CAN are able to expand? They may choose to limit competition, but that in itself does not necessarily argue for the use of the A380; an air services agreement to protect their own airlines might be most effectively worded to limit seat counts, rather than aircraft frequencies. And the Chinese government has been moving towards greater competition on international routes in recent years, even if that has been at the request of foreign governments.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2010-06-07 13:08:47 and read 21308 times.

Market fragmentation is the key to the answer, due to both multiple airlines and multiple hubs... But, wait until we move from 5 legacies (6 until 2 yrs ago) to 3, which imo will undoubtedly happen in the near future (with UA and CO who are almost one now, AA will likely have to absorb someone else to stay alive and we'll be down to 3, whatever the fate of US will be)

With the race to cost-cutting plans, fares ever lower, pax numbers ever increasing, congestion at major hubs in the US and abroad not about to disappear, i will be surprised if the mega-US carriers do not ever opt for VLAs between their main hubs and their main partners' hubs abroad in the next decade or so...
Unless they decide to have their foreign partners fly them for them through joint ventures, like the AF A380 flight to JFK, of which DL shares some of the cost and revenue.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2010-06-07 13:13:16 and read 21301 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 111):
It makes sense for Lufthansa to consider using VLAs because again, the German longhaul market is concentrated quite strongly on FRA and MUC (with the jury still out on DUS, but early indications that it can be grown over time into a third major gateway).

LH no longer positions DUS as a hub. It describes its hubs as FRA, MUC, ZRH, VIE, and BRU.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-07 13:41:25 and read 21203 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 111):
It makes sense for Lufthansa to consider using VLAs because again, the German longhaul market is concentrated quite strongly on FRA and MUC (with the jury still out on DUS, but early indications that it can be grown over time into a third major gateway). UA and DL aren't not so limited, and thus don't need to seriously consider A380s.

LH's home market is actually the whole European Union, and they have hubs at FRA, MUC, DUS (maybe), ZRH, VIE, and BRU, if we forget about bmi and don't include MXP yet. That's more hubs than either AA (DFW, ORD, MIA) or the current UA (ORD, DEN, SFO, IAD) have.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: kanban
Posted 2010-06-07 16:46:00 and read 20990 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 110):
Quoting kanban (Reply 72):
look at the problems they've had trying to operate out of New York... today a 380, tomorrow a 777 then back again

In the mean time the A380 was also easily redeployed, they were not parked.

I think the reason the redeployment is easy right now is because there are so few... wait until they have a larger fleet.. the ease of redeployment goes down. Especially with some airlines suffering from delusions of grandour

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2010-06-07 18:05:03 and read 20922 times.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 120):
Unless they decide to have their foreign partners fly them for them through joint ventures, like the AF A380 flight to JFK, of which DL shares some of the cost and revenue.

That is a low risk way for cash poor airlines to 'invest' in the A380.


I personally only see two airlines in the US would have a 'superhub' model (that many others have noted is required for the A380): UA/CO and DL/NW. AA and US have a more fragmented model that will never support the A380. Too many seats would be filled via transfer passengers.

US airlines also serve relatively few of the 'super-trunk' routes. That isn't to say certain US to global routes are not important, but too few for anyone but UA/CO or DL/NW to consider the type. I doubt DL/NW will acquire more large airframes in the near future and UA/CO seems to be on track for a more CO type fragmentation strategy.

That will leave their global partners feeding the hubs with A380's.   

If Airbus hadn't delayed the A380 and Fedex had taken receipt of their order... we would be in a different discussion. Without another US based operator to share expenses (e.g., maintenance 'lessons learned'), I doubt we'll see an A380 operated by a US airline.

Besides, until A380 production 'hits stride,' we won't see many anyway.  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Solent
Posted 2010-06-07 18:32:20 and read 20824 times.

Something to consider.

If a large number of successful airlines can find a case for flying the A380 to the USA is there no possible case for the US airlines to do the same.

Service is a large determinant for myself and others to which airline I choose, and are the US airlines really providers of the cabin service that win awards.

Profitable airlines appear to consider the A380 viable and seem willing to purchase this aircraft. They also consider and buy any aircraft they see as being necessary for this business and this includes every boeing and airbus product based on what is best for their business needs.

Some airlines make large profits and are able to purchase what they need.

The US airlines pop in and out of Chapter 11. In Australia if you go broke you disappear ala Ansett, Compass.

If not for Chapter 11 how many US legacy carriers would be flying.

Southwest has a sound business case which enables them to make money. The legacies have lost a lot of money over the years.

Qantas purchases whatever it needs for the market and competes in very strong market with Virgin Blue, Tiger and its own Jetstar for market share. It still flys 767,s like buses in the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane triangle. Sydney and Melbourne is one of the busiest domestic air routes anywhere.

The 747 was used domesticallly between Mel, Syd and Perth for years. Perth domestic was very busy at night with 2 747's loading at the same time with a 767 going to the same destination 30 minutes later. These are now replaced by A330's.

Airlines I believe buy what they need if they have the dollars and the customers. The A380 is being used by a number of successful airlines who have large numbers of Boeing aircraft, but have the need for an A380.

These airlines also appear to win a lot of awards for service.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2010-06-07 18:34:44 and read 20820 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 124):
If Airbus hadn't delayed the A380 and Fedex had taken receipt of their order... we would be in a different discussion. Without another US based operator to share expenses (e.g., maintenance 'lessons learned'), I doubt we'll see an A380 operated by a US airline.

The backlash against using public funds to make Airports A380 ready certainly hurts any airline acceptance for use in the US.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 124):
I personally only see two airlines in the US would have a 'superhub' model (that many others have noted is required for the A380): UA/CO and DL/NW. AA and US have a more fragmented model that will never support the A380. Too many seats would be filled via transfer passengers

Even here I don't see it. Its too easy to expand a large city into a new hub if you need it. Even now we see multiple hubs per coast, and the range of the 787/A350/777 makes the more central hubs possible places to do international flights. Given this, I can't imagine either airline going for a A380 when 747 and 773ER haven't even been on the radar for a plethora of years. Even if they need a VLA, the 748i would be far cheaper to integrate into thier systems than a A380. Its very doubtful that they would use the 748 unless Boeing offers them at prices that I don't think Boeing can offer them for.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-07 19:57:45 and read 20711 times.

Quoting Solent (Reply 125):
Service is a large determinant for myself and others to which airline I choose, and are the US airlines really providers of the cabin service that win awards.

Yes, despite the vitriol often displayed against USA legacies here, they DO win awards for their longhaul products and service. Continental, for instance, routinely beats foreiegn legacies the world over in winning indutry awards and accolades. USA legacies will even more awards over time as the rollouts of the new J cabins continues, with only BA, VS and LX keeping up with the USA legacies on hard product in Business Class. But some would rather stick to outmoded assumptions based on outdated info... 

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2010-06-08 00:06:56 and read 20496 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 126):
The backlash against using public funds to make Airports A380 ready certainly hurts any airline acceptance for use in the US.

That's a rather strange mentality if it is true. So do we have US citizens boycotting foreign airlines flying the A380 into the US?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-08 00:09:34 and read 20504 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 127):
Quoting Solent (Reply 125):
Service is a large determinant for myself and others to which airline I choose, and are the US airlines really providers of the cabin service that win awards.

Yes, despite the vitriol often displayed against USA legacies here, they DO win awards for their longhaul products and service. Continental, for instance, routinely beats foreiegn legacies the world over in winning indutry awards and accolades. USA legacies will even more awards over time as the rollouts of the new J cabins continues, with only BA, VS and LX keeping up with the USA legacies on hard product in Business Class. But some would rather stick to outmoded assumptions based on outdated info... 


The surveys US airlines win are polls of US passengers in local magazines, etc. The very recent upgrades of hard product on UA and others do not be any means suddenly tick all the boxes in end to airline service. The culture and soft product will take longer to change. Boosting don't make it so.

Continental Awards (from website)

2010

No. 1 U.S. Airline
World's Most Admired Airlines
FORTUNE Magazine
Business Leadership Recycling Award
American Forest & Paper Association
Presidents Club, Terminal E, Houston Lounge of the Year, North America:
Priority PassTM Lounge of the Year Awards
2009

No. 1 Greenest U.S. Airline
Greenopia
No. 1 Pet-Friendly Airline
Petfinder.com
Best Large Domestic Airlines (Premium Seating)
Best Value for the Money (International)
Zagat® Airline Survey
Best Executive/Business Class
Best North American Carrier
OAG Airline of the Year Awards
Airline of the Year Food Services
PAX International Readership Awards
Best Airline for North American Travel
Business Traveler Magazine
Best Worldwide Airline
Northern Ireland Travel Trade News Awards
Best Domestic Airline
TravelAge West WAVE Award
Best Airline: North America
Skytrax World Airline AwardsTM
No. 1 World’s Most Admired Airline
FORTUNE Magazine
Presidents Club, Terminal E, Houston Lounge of the Year, North America:
Priority PassTM Lounge of the Year Awards
Best Airline to North America
Irish Travel Trade News Awards

American's on this forum tend to reject Skytrax as their airlines are rated so poorly once you take input from millions of travellers world wide (none are even 4/5 star rated). They favour US serveys of a travelling public who in the majority never leave the country to have any other reference point. So does CO's website, but funnily they are willing to accept the modest title, Best Nth American Airline from Skytrax. The only non-US awards are Irish, where CO only compete with Air Lingus and Iceland Air.

I'm very pleased to see improvements in the hard product to bring it into line with the the better offers, but there is some way to go before I'd open the wallet to buy a long haul ticket on the US legacies and most non-Americans would agree for now.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 00:15:55 and read 20491 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 126):
The backlash against using public funds to make Airports A380 ready certainly hurts any airline acceptance for use in the US.

Is there really any sign of this backlash? If there is, one idea would be to privatize airports, as has been done in many "socialist" European countries.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 127):
with only BA, VS and LX keeping up with the USA legacies on hard product in Business Class.

Aren't you forgetting QF, SQ, EK, CX, NZ, QR, etc. etc. etc.? Plus, many are superior to the USA legacies when it comes to the soft product. Not to mention attitude...

[Edited 2010-06-08 00:17:46]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: CHRISBA777ER
Posted 2010-06-08 00:27:38 and read 20458 times.

I think the main reason is that US airlines are have networks that are heavily focused on domestic routes, and you don't need an A380 for those.

For the international routes they do fly, say to Asia and Europe, the local carriers (BA, LH, AFKL, LX, SK, VS, IB and the rest from Europe and NH, JL, OZ, SQ, MH, BR, CI, CA, MU, QF, NZ, in Asia/Australia) often fly larger planes on any given route than their American counterparts for a number of reasons including that where price is roughly the same, the average non-alliance aligned consumer would choose the European or Asian airline over the US one because of poorer service, comparatively outdated product and far fewer frills etc. The gap is narrowing more now, but it used to be vast. Another reason is that the European or Asian consumer does not value frequency over everything else, like the US consumer seems to, so the European and Asian carriers are happy to offer fewer flights as it does not put them at a commercial disadvantage. US airlines have shown a continual preference for smaller planes (UA and NW/DL's 744 fleets are an exception) over the last 20 years because for many US airlines, the ideal yield safeguard is to fly planes that are too small, as larger ones may have the potential to damage yield if traffic is not 100% year round.

Another reason is that the A380 is hated and despised by many Americans. You only have to do a search on here to realise the alarming vitriol spouted about it from the members here. Ordering an Airbus is, for some airlines in the US, not an acceptable course of action from a political standpoint. To order the biggest Airbus, when there is a Boeing competitor (the mighty 747 no less) available, would be poorly received by many shareholders, and the airlines know this. Some would even call it "unpatriotic" and any A380 order from any US airline would attract considerable criticism from the media and interested parties. It would be like the USAF buying non-American tankers or the USMC buying non-American transport helicopters - not a sensible thing to do politically. The markets in the US are so competitive that airlines must do anything they can not to alienate their customer base, and an A380 order over a 748i would do that. I'm not saying it would alienate everybody, or that even the majority would even care, but enough would care and enough would choose to fly someone else, to make it a problem.

[Edited 2010-06-08 00:37:49]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: CHRISBA777ER
Posted 2010-06-08 00:35:37 and read 20437 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 129):
Quoting avek00 (Reply 127):
Quoting Solent (Reply 125):
Service is a large determinant for myself and others to which airline I choose, and are the US airlines really providers of the cabin service that win awards.

Yes, despite the vitriol often displayed against USA legacies here, they DO win awards for their longhaul products and service. Continental, for instance, routinely beats foreiegn legacies the world over in winning indutry awards and accolades. USA legacies will even more awards over time as the rollouts of the new J cabins continues, with only BA, VS and LX keeping up with the USA legacies on hard product in Business Class. But some would rather stick to outmoded assumptions based on outdated info...


The surveys US airlines win are polls of US passengers in local magazines, etc. The very recent upgrades of hard product on UA and others do not be any means suddenly tick all the boxes in end to airline service. The culture and soft product will take longer to change. Boosting don't make it so.

Continental Awards (from website)

2010

No. 1 U.S. Airline
World's Most Admired Airlines
FORTUNE Magazine
Business Leadership Recycling Award
American Forest & Paper Association
Presidents Club, Terminal E, Houston Lounge of the Year, North America:
Priority PassTM Lounge of the Year Awards
2009

No. 1 Greenest U.S. Airline
Greenopia
No. 1 Pet-Friendly Airline
Petfinder.com
Best Large Domestic Airlines (Premium Seating)
Best Value for the Money (International)
Zagat® Airline Survey
Best Executive/Business Class
Best North American Carrier
OAG Airline of the Year Awards
Airline of the Year Food Services
PAX International Readership Awards
Best Airline for North American Travel
Business Traveler Magazine
Best Worldwide Airline
Northern Ireland Travel Trade News Awards
Best Domestic Airline
TravelAge West WAVE Award
Best Airline: North America
Skytrax World Airline AwardsTM
No. 1 World’s Most Admired Airline
FORTUNE Magazine
Presidents Club, Terminal E, Houston Lounge of the Year, North America:
Priority PassTM Lounge of the Year Awards
Best Airline to North America
Irish Travel Trade News Awards

American's on this forum tend to reject Skytrax as their airlines are rated so poorly once you take input from millions of travellers world wide (none are even 4/5 star rated). They favour US serveys of a travelling public who in the majority never leave the country to have any other reference point. So does CO's website, but funnily they are willing to accept the modest title, Best Nth American Airline from Skytrax. The only non-US awards are Irish, where CO only compete with Air Lingus and Iceland Air.

I'm very pleased to see improvements in the hard product to bring it into line with the the better offers, but there is some way to go before I'd open the wallet to buy a long haul ticket on the US legacies and most non-Americans would agree for now.

Fantastic post. I wish i had time to say the same thing, and if i had i wouldnt have said it better.

Anyone who thinks the US legacies are anything other than middle of the road has obviously never been on SQ, CX, MH, QR, EY, EK, NH, BA, LX, QF, NZ, VS etc etc etc.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2010-06-08 00:43:14 and read 20401 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 127):
Yes, despite the vitriol often displayed against USA legacies here, they DO win awards for their longhaul products and service.

Sure. Even LCCs win awards, so your point being? ozglobal made perfect sense. The issue is not just the number of awards won, but the credibility of the awarding entity as well.

Speaking of quantity, if you believe US airlines are anywhere close to those best in the business, perhaps you may wish to compare CO's list of awards with that of, say, SQ?

CO:

http://www.continental.com/web/en-us...pany/globalcitizenship/awards.aspx

SQ:

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...company_info/news/achievements.jsp

You will soon notice that the number of awards CO wins in one year is comparable to the number SQ wins in one month. I have not even gone into comparing the quality of awards yet.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2010-06-08 00:55:01 and read 20361 times.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
I'm not saying it would alienate everybody, or that even the majority would even care, but enough would care and enough would choose to fly someone else, to make it a problem.

To be realistic, the typical duration of such a private ban is tiny compared to aircraft delivery times, and many of those who announce to ban now whould queue for the first tickets of the new super aircraft...

But basically, US airlines have bigger problems but to replace their flag ships, there are fleets of MD80 and 733 and 762 to replace, then 763 and 752 and 77A. I still hope fot a 748i oder by new United, they can definitively fill them on the routes they now use their 744 without problems. Delta/NW unfornuately only offers Delta quality, which I always experienced to be unacceptable. Barbieliner fits best as their flag ship.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2010-06-08 01:18:44 and read 20310 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 130):
Is there really any sign of this backlash? If there is, one idea would be to privatize airports, as has been done in many "socialist" European countries.

Its done as the Airports that will see the A380 got thier upgrades, and the ones that won't see it, but were trying to anyway got shot down.

Basicly people did the math and the A380 upgrades were going to cost normal passengers (and taxpayers) a good pile of money, but the A380 would pay back in a tiny % for decades to come. The A380 is simply far too tiny a fraction of the flights to the US to justify the money spent at most if not all of the locations.

However, as I've said, its done.

Also privatizing airports is a spectacularly bad idea for the US. Unless you formed companies that would operate as regulated industries, It would just lead to problems as you are handing a monopoly to a private company.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 01:36:01 and read 20264 times.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
Another reason is that the European or Asian consumer does not value frequency over everything else, like the US consumer seems to

I object to this. What is this statement based on? I have given two counter-examples above. I'm sure there are more. JR operates shinkansen trains between Tokyo and Osaka every 10 minutes. IB, JK, UX, VY used to have about 100 flights each way, each way BCN-MAD, before the high-speed rail started two years ago. So, apparently, Japanese and Spaniards do value frequency.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
Another reason is that the A380 is hated and despised by many Americans.

Do not extrapolate from a.net to the whole USA population. Most people in the USA (like elsewhere in the world) couldn't care less about the plane they are in.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
Also privatizing airports is a spectacularly bad idea for the US. Unless you formed companies that would operate as regulated industries, It would just lead to problems as you are handing a monopoly to a private company.

And yet it seems to work in, say, the UK...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: 2175301
Posted 2010-06-08 03:07:22 and read 20146 times.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
Another reason is that the A380 is hated and despised by many Americans. You only have to do a search on here to realise the alarming vitriol spouted about it from the members here. Ordering an Airbus is, for some airlines in the US, not an acceptable course of action from a political standpoint. To order the biggest Airbus, when there is a Boeing competitor (the mighty 747 no less) available, would be poorly received by many shareholders, and the airlines know this. Some would even call it "unpatriotic" and any A380 order from any US airline would attract considerable criticism from the media and interested parties. It would be like the USAF buying non-American tankers or the USMC buying non-American transport helicopters - not a sensible thing to do politically. The markets in the US are so competitive that airlines must do anything they can not to alienate their customer base, and an A380 order over a 748i would do that. I'm not saying it would alienate everybody, or that even the majority would even care, but enough would care and enough would choose to fly someone else, to make it a problem.

I totally disagree.... Most americans have no idea who made the plane they are flying on (and clearly don't care).

Many US Airlines fly Airbus products - and as a substantial part of their fleet.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2010-06-08 03:15:48 and read 20119 times.

So my summary is:

National flying in the US is high frequency over anything, so will not see anything bigger than the 738 resp A320, or 739/A321 max.
This makes most of the flying in the US. US airports have no slot restrictions.

Only Delta and United have international connections, mainly to Asia, from big hubs that could justify a VLA, US and AA connect from smaller hubs happy with 772 or A333. Both Delta and UA will replce their aging 763 fleet first, and decide if their 744 will be replaced 1:1 by 748i/A380 or by more smaller aircraft (A3510, B789, B77W) in 5 years or so.

This discussion will stay on a.net approx once per month until then.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-06-08 03:30:21 and read 20093 times.

Quoting Solent (Reply 125):
If a large number of successful airlines can find a case for flying the A380 to the USA is there no possible case for the US airlines to do the same.

Where would they fly them? If QF flies the A380 to the US, you expect DL and other US carriers to in return fly A380's to Australia, is the market large enough to support multiple daily A380's by multiple carriers? QF uses LAX if DL could fly their A380 direct from ATL they may have a market, but if they have to go via the west coast..........

The A380 is designed to carry a lot of pax, to some extent it is a competition eliminator in the smaller pax market. In the larger market - say the US - the major hubs will have multiple international A380 operators which leaves smaller hubs cities availabe for US carriers, the better a/c for those routes would be the larger twins.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
Another reason is that the A380 is hated and despised by many Americans.

First you are specific to the A380

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
Ordering an Airbus is, for some airlines in the US, not an acceptable course of action from a political standpoint.

Now you go to Airbus, so here's my question. Which country is the largest operator of Airbus a/c, and I'm not talking about orders, but actually have a/c flying. The US is in the top 5, in time that may change with India and China aviation markets expanding, but to say that US airlines are against ordering Airbus a/c because of a military tanker fiasco means that NW, US, UA, B6, Spirit did what, alienate their customer base, that might explain why they have financial difficulties, so essentially the road to recovery for US carriers is to dump Airbus a/c?
If you want to do a search, why not look for those when NW ordered the A330 over the 777, or UA going A320 over 737, or B6 and Spirit staring up with A320's.

Thankfully for aviation fans, Airbus does not share your view of the US consumers since they have not withdrawn their products from the market that does not want them and actively pays more to fly on Boeing a/c  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: avek00
Posted 2010-06-08 04:29:34 and read 19984 times.

Lambaste US carriers all you want, but they simply wont be ordering A380s. American carriers will stick to the flexibility and advanced technology of the Boeing 787 and Airbus 350, and will leave the Flying Foreheads to others.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-08 04:37:13 and read 19975 times.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 138):
Only Delta and United have international connections, mainly to Asia, from big hubs that could justify a VLA

They justify VLAs. They launched the 744 and operate them since from those big hubs

 

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 04:53:45 and read 19910 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 140):
Lambaste US carriers all you want, but they simply wont be ordering A380s. American carriers will stick to the flexibility and advanced technology of the Boeing 787 and Airbus 350, and will leave the Flying Foreheads to others.

Speaking about the others...
http://www.emirates.com/at/english/a...etail.aspx?article=575643&offset=0

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-08 05:06:54 and read 19872 times.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 131):
Another reason is that the A380 is hated and despised by many Americans. You only have to do a search on here to realise the alarming vitriol spouted about it from the members here. Ordering an Airbus is, for some airlines in the US, not an acceptable course of action from a political standpoint. To order the biggest Airbus, when there is a Boeing competitor (the mighty 747 no less) available, would be poorly received by many shareholders, and the airlines know this. Some would even call it "unpatriotic" and any A380 order from any US airline would attract considerable criticism from the media and interested parties. It would be like the USAF buying non-American tankers or the USMC buying non-American transport helicopters - not a sensible thing to do politically. The markets in the US are so competitive that airlines must do anything they can not to alienate their customer base, and an A380 order over a 748i would do that. I'm not saying it would alienate everybody, or that even the majority would even care, but enough would care and enough would choose to fly someone else, to make it a problem.

I don't think so. US carriers have bought way too many Airbus planes in the past for that. US is heavily Airbus, NW was, and UA has bought the A32X in large numbers, now even their first ever Airbus widebodies, HA has bought A330/350. In addition, B6, F9, VX, NK, DH what do/did they fly?

Airbus is accepted in the US, only some "patriotic" a.netters talk against it all the time. One should keep in mind that enough Airbus parts come from the US, while enough parts in Boeing planes come frome outside it.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 138):
Only Delta and United have international connections, mainly to Asia, from big hubs that could justify a VLA

I wouldn't be so sure. The European and Asian carriers all have one large hub to fly from. So if BA, LH, AF, EK, etc. decide to fly to a certain destination (say HKG), they fly it from one particular city only (except LH maybe, with their capacity problems at FRA do it from MUC). That justifies big planes. American carriers fly to their destination from several American cities. Take FRA and HKG. From how many different cities do UA or CO fly to those? 2,3,4? That means that they have less need for a VLA.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 05:23:52 and read 19820 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 143):
Take FRA and HKG. From how many different cities do UA or CO fly to those? 2,3,4? That means that they have less need for a VLA.

LH flies to HKG from FRA, MUC, and ZRH. CO from EWR. UA from SFO and ORD. Your point again?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2010-06-08 05:39:18 and read 19765 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 127):
Continental, for instance, routinely beats foreiegn legacies the world over in winning indutry awards and accolades.

   How many of these demonstrate routinely beating foreign legacies the world over (btw, I didn't know there was an award for recycling business leaders)?
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 129):
Continental Awards (from website)

2010

No. 1 U.S. Airline
World's Most Admired Airlines
FORTUNE Magazine
Business Leadership Recycling Award
American Forest & Paper Association
Presidents Club, Terminal E, Houston Lounge of the Year, North America:
Priority PassTM Lounge of the Year Awards
Quoting avek00 (Reply 127):
USA legacies will even more awards over time as the rollouts of the new J cabins continues, with only BA, VS and LX keeping up with the USA legacies on hard product in Business Class.

Obviously you don't get outside the U.S. much or you might have noticed SQ, CX, MH, TG, QR, EY, EK, NH, QF, NZ, TN etc etc etc.

On the fragmentation issue, LH has more hubs in its home market (FRA, MUC, ZRH, VIE, BRU) than any U.S. international carrier, but still finds a business case to use VLAs.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2010-06-08 05:53:59 and read 19706 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 143):
I wouldn't be so sure. The European and Asian carriers all have one large hub to fly from. So if BA, LH, AF, EK, etc. decide to fly to a certain destination (say HKG), they fly it from one particular city only (except LH maybe, with their capacity problems at FRA do it from MUC). That justifies big planes. American carriers fly to their destination from several American cities. Take FRA and HKG. From how many different cities do UA or CO fly to those? 2,3,4? That means that they have less need for a VLA.

I do not get this theory either. One of the selling points of VLAs is to connect major air hubs. Just because an airline has more than one hub does not mean it does not have any hubs of significant size. Are you saying JFK, LAX and ORD are suddenly too small to support VLAs just because they are one of multiple hubs served by the same airline? Based on what theory or statistics?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2010-06-08 05:57:26 and read 19708 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 140):
Lambaste US carriers all you want, but they simply wont be ordering A380s. American carriers will stick to the flexibility and advanced technology of the Boeing 787 and Airbus 350, and will leave the Flying Foreheads to others.

As long as US carriers languish in their little potholes and bleed red ink, and US customers all have profiles similar to yours (ie, where they believe US carriers are the best in the global aviation business) such that the US carriers have no incentive to provide better service, you are probably right.  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-08 05:59:08 and read 19700 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 144):
LH flies to HKG from FRA, MUC, and ZRH. CO from EWR. UA from SFO and ORD. Your point again?

LH only flies from MUC because they didn't have enough room at FRA. ZRH is LX. Still, BA flies to HKG only from LHR, AF only from CDG. UA and CO are teaming up, so the new United will fly to HKG from three destinations?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: huaiwei
Posted 2010-06-08 06:10:58 and read 19650 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 148):
LH only flies from MUC because they didn't have enough room at FRA. ZRH is LX. Still, BA flies to HKG only from LHR, AF only from CDG. UA and CO are teaming up, so the new United will fly to HKG from three destinations?

And this still doesn't address my concerns. Are you assuming the market size served by each US carriers is similar to each Asian/European carrier, since only then would your theory make sense?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 06:17:56 and read 19631 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 148):
LH only flies from MUC because they didn't have enough room at FRA. ZRH is LX. Still, BA flies to HKG only from LHR, AF only from CDG. UA and CO are teaming up, so the new United will fly to HKG from three destinations?

Wait. So you add up UA with CO, but you don't add up LH with its wholly-owned subsidiary LX? Please. LH flies to HKG from 3 airports now, just as UA+CO will (maybe) fly, once they (maybe) combine. Again, I don't see your point.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-08 06:35:43 and read 19549 times.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 149):
And this still doesn't address my concerns. Are you assuming the market size served by each US carriers is similar to each Asian/European carrier, since only then would your theory make sense?

The market is bigger, but there are more competitors. The US with 300 million people and six big carriers and Germany, France, Spain with 250 million people and four major carriers are somewhat equivalent concerning the market share of a carrier.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 150):
Wait. So you add up UA with CO, but you don't add up LH with its wholly-owned subsidiary LX? Please. LH flies to HKG from 3 airports now, just as UA+CO will (maybe) fly, once they (maybe) combine. Again, I don't see your point

Try by changing LH with BA or AF.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: PHLBOS
Posted 2010-06-08 10:35:52 and read 18691 times.

Quoting bohica (Reply 56):
Back in the late 1960's-early 70's when Boeing introduced the 747 almost every major carrier in the US screamed "me too" and jumped on the 747 bandwagon. Many of these carriers learned the hard way that the 747, while prestigious to have, were money sucking beasts that were flying around their route systems half-full all the time. At many airlines, the 747 changed the color of the ink in their financial reports from black to red. In fact, United is the ONLY surviving US carrier that has continuously operated the 747 since its introduction. (yeah, yeah, NW merged into DL)

The surviving US carriers have learned their lesson form the early days of the 747 and they obviously are not about to make the same mistake again. They seem happy with their future A350/B787 fleets. While there are several routes to/from the US which can support the A380/B748, it is not enough to justify the purchase of a fleet of VLA for US carriers.

Another thing worth noting was that most if not airports serving large metropolitian cities upgraded/expanded their airports and airfields to handle 747-sized aircraft during the late-60s-early-70s as well. Additionally, the industry was still regulated when the 747 first rolled out; it was the CAB, not the individual airlines that decided routes and how often airline(s) could fly them. The CAB also decided and set the fares as well, BTW.

Quoting zeke (Reply 66):
ILFC, UPS and Fedex have ordered the A380

IIRC, wasn't production of the freight version of the A380 postponed or even cancelled a while back?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 126):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 124):
If Airbus hadn't delayed the A380 and Fedex had taken receipt of their order... we would be in a different discussion. Without another US based operator to share expenses (e.g., maintenance 'lessons learned'), I doubt we'll see an A380 operated by a US airline.

The backlash against using public funds to make Airports A380 ready certainly hurts any airline acceptance for use in the US.

I can't believe that it took well over 120 posts for somebody to finally mention the issue regarding airports being able to handle regular Group VI aircraft (which is what the FAA classifies the A380 as) operations. IIRC, weren't there only 5 or 6 airports in the U.S. (LAX and JFK being 2 of them) that have either already undergone or undergoing A380/Group VI upgrades?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 126):
Even if they need a VLA, the 748i would be far cheaper to integrate into thier systems than a A380. Its very doubtful that they would use the 748 unless Boeing offers them at prices that I don't think Boeing can offer them for.

   Since the 748 has the same wingspan as its older 747 predecessors (meaning that it's still considered by the FAA a Group V aircraft); airlines selecting this over the A380 have a greater advantage in terms of how many airports they can utilize w/such aircraft. Simply put: if an existing airport can already handle regular 747 operations, it can handle regular 748 operations. By regular operations, I mean that while the airplane is taxiing, taking off and/or landing; the adjacent and nearby parallel taxiways are NOT closed to other aircraft. Such a scenario would be the case if a JFK-bound A380 had to make diversion over to either BOS or PHL.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 128):
That's a rather strange mentality if it is true. So do we have US citizens boycotting foreign airlines flying the A380 into the US?

There's also other factors among US airports regarding ANY type of expansion (not just accomodating regular A380 operations)... bureaucracy and NIMBYs. Since airfield upgrades involve increased spacing of taxiways (due to the A380's wingspan); such alterations will require reconfiguaration and possibly expansion of the airfield. Compared to the late-60s, when airports were upgrading their infrastructure to handle 747s; the amount (and cost) of bureaucratic 'red tape' than a airport has to undergo before the first shovel hits the ground is exponentially greater than it was then. Back then, mandatory environmental impact statements (EIS)/permitting and stormwater management (a more recent addition) weren't required for airport expansion projects. Similar holds true for highways projects in the U.S. as well. These additional milestones add both time and cost to a project.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
Its done as the Airports that will see the A380 got thier upgrades, and the ones that won't see it, but were trying to anyway got shot down.

Much of that, I'm sure was due to the NIMBY factor. Neighbors didn't want larger planes flying over their homes.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
Basicly people did the math and the A380 upgrades were going to cost normal passengers (and taxpayers) a good pile of money, but the A380 would pay back in a tiny % for decades to come. The A380 is simply far too tiny a fraction of the flights to the US to justify the money spent at most if not all of the locations.

However, as I've said, its done.

Also privatizing airports is a spectacularly bad idea for the US. Unless you formed companies that would operate as regulated industries, It would just lead to problems as you are handing a monopoly to a private company.

Additionally, privatizing airports wouldn't sit too well with its neighbors.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 10:46:15 and read 18686 times.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 168):
Since the 748 has the same wingspan as its older 747 predecessors (meaning that it's still considered by the FAA a Group V aircraft); airlines selecting this over the A380 have a greater advantage in terms of how many airports they can utilize w/such aircraft.

And yet, only 25 748is have been ordered, by only two airlines, none of them from the USA.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 168):
Additionally, privatizing airports wouldn't sit too well with its neighbors.

In the country where the market reigns supreme? You can't be serious.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-08 10:56:00 and read 18643 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 169):
In the country where the market reigns supreme? You can't be serious.

That's a myth we Americans like to tell ourselves. It has very little basis in reality.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: PHLBOS
Posted 2010-06-08 11:06:06 and read 18591 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 169):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 168):
Since the 748 has the same wingspan as its older 747 predecessors (meaning that it's still considered by the FAA a Group V aircraft); airlines selecting this over the A380 have a greater advantage in terms of how many airports they can utilize w/such aircraft.

And yet, only 25 748is have been ordered, by only two airlines, none of them from the USA.

That's because, and this has been stated earlier, most routes served by US airlines can be operated with smaller equipment. Additionally, just how old are the 744s that DL(NW) and UA fly? They may not be old enough to warrant a like-sized replacement just yet. Plus, IIRC, development of the 748 occurred years after (not sure how many) the A380 was designed.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 169):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 168):
Additionally, privatizing airports wouldn't sit too well with its neighbors.

In the country where the market reigns supreme? You can't be serious.

Feel free to attend any public town hall meeting when an airport expansion project is being discussed (which I have attended a few) and you'll see first hand what I'm talking about.

Neighbors/NIMBYs typically have only one thing on their minds... their PROPERTY VALUES (another market force); especially if the neighborhood in question is a well-to-do one (i.e. more money). In their view, an airport expansion translates to a reduction in their property values.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: pylon101
Posted 2010-06-08 12:03:29 and read 18449 times.

I truly enjoy reading this thread.
It is not about A-380 as a such, it's more about the state of US aviation industry.
Many interesting insights were posted here.

Still many posts are missing scope on the mid-term future of the industry in the United States.

We have a kind of paradox here: thick economy (forget the present crisis - just for a moment) - lean aviation economics.
From my point of view the future will (might) be stipulated by several factors:

- burden of "hub - spoke"; airlines can't carry this burden of regional branches forever: sooner or later regional feeders will turn into independent airlines - with higher prices;
- population density is sparse - but 90% leave in metropolitan areas; potentially the number of smaller hubs will increase;
- frequency/point to point = smaller fleet = factor draining money out of the industry;
DCA - LGA/JFK shuttle is forever - but it serves very particular people - let them fly as they wish, just control taxpayers' money.

Talking of VLA on domestic market: in terms of money it is still less expensive to make B-748 and A-380 hopping than to send 737 or smaller planes every 30 minutes.
Say, most traffic to Bali is going via Singapore: SQ has B-777 every 3-4 hours on this route.
Or another example: Iberia uses A-340 for less than 3 hour flight to Los Rodeos from Madrid.

Sure we can't know for sure how it all develops. But it is always intriguing to look beyond the obvious.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Eagleboy
Posted 2010-06-08 12:08:02 and read 18416 times.

Quoting ATLflyer (Thread starter):
The largest airlines in the world are in the United States, so why aren't any of the US carriers interested in a large aircraft like the A380/747-8 anymore? What makes the A380 attractive to airlines such as Singapore, Emirates, Qantas, Air France or Lufthansa but not United or Delta?

If you remove their short haul/domestic fleet how do the US major compare to SQ, QF, LH, AF/KL, EK, BA etc? SQ, EK, VS, EY are primarily longhaul operators,so the A380 suits their needs.

The A380 is designed for lange range flights from large hubs. Perhaps the airlines I mentioned rely on this market more than the US carriers?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: bikerthai
Posted 2010-06-08 12:10:17 and read 18407 times.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 171):
translates to a reduction in their property values.

I don't live near an airport. So my observation is just that, observation.

Most of the time people who buy houses near airports expect the noise, low property values, etc. (that's why they can afford the house). They just don't expect changes like different flight patern, different planes, and or more runways. That's when the torches and pitchforks comes out.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 12:16:57 and read 18386 times.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 171):
Feel free to attend any public town hall meeting when an airport expansion project is being discussed (which I have attended a few) and you'll see first hand what I'm talking about.

Neighbors/NIMBYs typically have only one thing on their minds... their PROPERTY VALUES (another market force); especially if the neighborhood in question is a well-to-do one (i.e. more money). In their view, an airport expansion translates to a reduction in their property values.

I understand all this. But how is this related to your original statement "Additionally, privatizing airports wouldn't sit too well with its neighbors."? Both public and private airports can expand.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-08 12:19:24 and read 18382 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 175):
I understand all this. But how is this related to your original statement "Additionally, privatizing airports wouldn't sit too well with its neighbors."? Both public and private airports can expand.

Public airports are run by organizations that are more directly answerable to the local government.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2010-06-08 12:27:26 and read 18353 times.

US airlines have this ridiculous notion that passengers *NEED* ten jillion frequencies for 15 hour long-haul flights that crosses 8 time zones, so they end up with double the fleet size (larger maintenance bill), higher landing fees (isn't one A380 cheaper to land than 2 777s?), higher CASM, larger crew on payroll (which increases absolute turnover costs)

couple that with mediocre reputation and products that drives RASM down, and you wonder why they don't have a winning formula  

case study #1 : LHR slots are so rare and precious, and carriers waste them on transatlantic 757s. for the same price, i'd MUCH prefer to fly widebody on such a long flight, thank you very much.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 14:59:08 and read 18120 times.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 160):
Public airports are run by organizations that are more directly answerable to the local government.

Local governments give (or not) the permits that public and private airports need in order to expand. See BAA and LHR, for instance.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-06-08 15:05:56 and read 18113 times.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 152):
Since the 748 has the same wingspan as its older 747 predecessors (meaning that it's still considered by the FAA a Group V aircraft);

At 69m, the 748 actually has a wingspan 5m greater than the 744 and 9m greater than the original, which puts it fairly and squarely in Cat VI...  

Rgds

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FX1816
Posted 2010-06-08 15:11:50 and read 18101 times.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 156):
- population density is sparse - but 90% leave in metropolitan areas; potentially the number of smaller hubs will increase;

Well what are you saying, the US has a lower population density or are you saying that 90% (unrealistic) live in metropolitan areas of the US??? What do you use to judge a Metropolitan area??? I live 100 miles east of Los Angeles so is that still considered metropolitan Los Angeles??

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 156):
- burden of "hub - spoke"; airlines can't carry this burden of regional branches forever: sooner or later regional feeders will turn into independent airlines - with higher prices;

How do you figure this will happen??

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 161):
US airlines have this ridiculous notion that passengers *NEED* ten jillion frequencies for 15 hour long-haul flights that crosses 8 time zones, so they end up with double the fleet size (larger maintenance bill), higher landing fees (isn't one A380 cheaper to land than 2 777s?), higher CASM, larger crew on payroll (which increases absolute turnover costs)

Is it ten JILLION or just two 777's as in your example?? Where do the airlines come up with the idea of frequency over having VLA's with less frequency??? Why the American public that is, the majority of Americans seem to prefer frequency so why not give it to them??


For all of you that like to ridicule the US on why the airlines don't order A380's or 748i's, don't you think that the airlines HAVE looked at that idea and have decided it's not worth it??? Why do they use smaller aircraft, ie 777's over A380's, could it maybe that they'd rather not over saturate the international market with too much capacity?? Common sense folks, common sense, why should the US air carriers purchase A380's, so they can all quadruple the current capacity??

FX1816

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2010-06-08 15:20:04 and read 18074 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 163):
At 69m, the 748 actually has a wingspan 5m greater than the 744 and 9m greater than the original, which puts it fairly and squarely in Cat VI...


Exactly my thoughts as well. The B747 wing has grown considerably over its lifetime. The larger wing looks very good on that plane as well, as the bigger wing usually does.  .

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: panamair
Posted 2010-06-08 15:20:29 and read 18068 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 129):
but there is some way to go before I'd open the wallet to buy a long haul ticket on the US legacies and most non-Americans would agree for now.

Thousands upon thousands of non-Americans already open their wallets every day to buy a long-haul ticket on U.S. legacy carriers. Do you really think that Delta, Continental, United sustain 85+% load factors on their transatlantic services in the spring months based on patronage of Americans only??

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: futureorthopod
Posted 2010-06-08 15:31:45 and read 18053 times.

I, unfortunately, at the moment do NOT have time to read through all these arguments. Nevertheless, I was wondering if anyone has ever brought up the issue of MOST US airlines striving to stay loyal to an American company: Boeing.

I know there was news of Continental signing a loyalty agreement with Boeing. And even it this agreement is now null and void, I wonder what role wanting to support your country's product plays a role in these decisions.

Just wondering.

I am definitely an airline enthusiast, but am nowhere near as knowledgeable about this topic...lots for me to learn I see....

Ahhhh well...gotta get back to studying for finals. I have a Endocrinology, Reproduction, & Metabolism final tomorrow (wed), and then a Neurology lab and written final on Friday...Then off to Puerto Rico on CO (of course) from LAX, but via EWR...on a 753 for both legs (for some reason I think some of those planes were purchased from the now defunct ATA).

Cya ladies and gents

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 15:31:56 and read 18056 times.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 164):
Common sense folks, common sense, why should the US air carriers purchase A380's, so they can all quadruple the current capacity??

Because otherwise somebody else will do it. Oh wait, EK just did it...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-08 15:35:04 and read 18053 times.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 164):
Is it ten JILLION or just two 777's as in your example?? Where do the airlines come up with the idea of frequency over having VLA's with less frequency??? Why the American public that is, the majority of Americans seem to prefer frequency so why not give it to them??

I) the "majority of Americans" never fly long haul internationally in there lifetimes so have little input for carrier strategy

II) they prefer frequency on short haul not because their American DNA tells them to, but because, like the rest of the world's short haul travelers, it's more convenient

III) US airlines are configured for and think as domestic carriers. This is the final reason, not some illusory higher state of evolution, that they have no VLA.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-08 15:37:22 and read 18048 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 169):

I can't agree more!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-08 15:46:59 and read 18021 times.

Quoting panamair (Reply 166):
Thousands upon thousands of non-Americans already open their wallets every day to buy a long-haul ticket on U.S. legacy carriers. Do you really think that Delta, Continental, United sustain 85+% load factors on their transatlantic services in the spring months based on patronage of Americans only??

Got the figures on European, Oz and Asian J and F passengers on US legacies? I don't know of anyone who would in my professional circles on either continent given the choice of BA, LX, VS, SQ, CX, QF, EY, EK, MH, QR or even LH and AF.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: DCA-ROCguy
Posted 2010-06-08 20:16:55 and read 17567 times.

No time to read 179 posts, but from what I know plus the posts I did read, I'd agree with those who say the A380 is too big for US legacies. Yes, they lose money with the business model they have, but they'd lose more if they cut frequencies and tried to pack people onto bigger planes that went less frequently. Frequency trumps a/c size in the USA.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 171):
Neighbors/NIMBYs typically have only one thing on their minds... their PROPERTY VALUES (another market force); especially if the neighborhood in question is a well-to-do one (i.e. more money). In their view, an airport expansion translates to a reduction in their property values.

To my observation, most of them don't like noise either. But they bought near an airport, at their own risk, and the entire region shouldn't suffer because of their bad decision-making.

Five or seven years ago, the Washington Post had a story about how a sleazy developer built a swanky housing development north of IAD. They carefully showed people the houses only in the daytime so that the planes weren't landing on that pattern. People bought the houses without looking at Google Earth or a three-dollar road map to see what was nearby. Then they yacked to the Post because planes landed overhead in the evening, and they could read airline names on the sides of the a/c. Their own fault.

Fortuantely, no one could stop MWAA from building IAD's third 1-19. Would that the story was so happy elsewhere.

Jim

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 00:28:15 and read 17414 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 172):
Yes, they lose money with the business model they have, but they'd lose more if they cut frequencies and tried to pack people onto bigger planes that went less frequently. Frequency trumps a/c size in the USA.

Frequency trumps a/c size everywhere in the world when it comes to short-haul flying. Nothing unique about the USA here. But frequency doesn't necessarily trump a/c size when it comes to long or very-long haul routes, which is what the 380 is designed to fly.

[Edited 2010-06-09 00:30:18]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-09 01:39:11 and read 17322 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 172):
Yes, they lose money with the business model they have, but they'd lose more if they cut frequencies and tried to pack people onto bigger planes that went less frequently. Frequency trumps a/c size in the USA.

If everyone's losing money this just highlights the problem C11 has caused.

With the merges though, this should help things for the airliners, and i believe this helps the customer too. At the end of the day unsurvivable competition just leads to desperation and deception. Making things like gradual decline in service, hidden charges, and defensive short term strategies necessary to stay afloat. None of which helps the customer.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: OA412
Posted 2010-06-09 01:52:52 and read 17303 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 171):
Got the figures on European, Oz and Asian J and F passengers on US legacies? I don't know of anyone who would in my professional circles on either continent given the choice of BA, LX, VS, SQ, CX, QF, EY, EK, MH, QR or even LH and AF.

I don't have stats, but it stands to reason that non-Americans purchase J class tickets on US legacies. Bare in mind that just because those in your professional circle do know choose US carriers, it does not mean that no non-American chooses them.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-09 03:29:10 and read 17178 times.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 175):
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 171):
Got the figures on European, Oz and Asian J and F passengers on US legacies? I don't know of anyone who would in my professional circles on either continent given the choice of BA, LX, VS, SQ, CX, QF, EY, EK, MH, QR or even LH and AF.

I don't have stats, but it stands to reason that non-Americans purchase J class tickets on US legacies. Bare in mind that just because those in your professional circle do know choose US carriers, it does not mean that no non-American chooses them.

Bear in mind that my professional circles include colleagues in a dozen countries in EU, Asia, Oz and even the US. They all fly non-US carriers if they get the choice and are in J. I have acknowledged that the US carriers are behaving logically in terms of the the domestic market. They in fact should be understood as domestic carriers with an overseas presence. This international operation is not their main focus and they are not leaders in it in service.

This is not just my opinion, but a well recognised phenomenon in international airline surveys (again non US ones). It is such a well discussed trend in terms of US readers' feedback to SkyTrax , for example, that for a number of years they had to have a FAQ explaining to Americans why for most people US airlines were not preferred in terms of service.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: PHLBOS
Posted 2010-06-09 05:54:43 and read 17071 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 172):
To my observation, most of them don't like noise either. But they bought near an airport, at their own risk, and the entire region shouldn't suffer because of their bad decision-making.

Quite true (the noise factor also plays into the property value issue as well BTW) although I know of at least one scenario where the noise issue was a bunch of   

Back when Shuttle America was still a stand-alone carrier and flying DHC-8s out of BED; many residents in Bedford and Lexington, MA complained about the so-called noise. However, if one looks back years earlier to when BED was strictly an Air Force Base; the noise from the military jets that flew in and out of there was certainly louder than little DHC-8s and then, later, Saabs.

For BED, the real issue (in the eyes of the Yuppie NIMBYs), was the increased flow of the great unwashed coming to their neighborhood to get a cheap flight (this was back when most BOS fares were sky high).

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-09 06:11:45 and read 17025 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 176):
They all fly non-US carriers if they get the choice and are in J.

My bolding.

Your counterpoint to Panamair is based on choice.A good chunk of international premium flying is business, and a good chunk of that is contracted. People often don't have the choice.

Also, with the upgrades the American carriers have made, you need to be far more careful with your comparisons. I would fly DL, CO, or UA's new business products before I would fly AF, KL or LH's.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Flighty
Posted 2010-06-09 07:32:18 and read 16911 times.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 176):
This international operation is not their main focus and they are not leaders in it in service.

They don't need to lead a market in which they do not participate. They have a superior network on the American side, which is of course only possible for US based airlines. You can fit excellent J and F class products into a 777 or A330.

Frankly, the A380 is not competitive in the business that American carriers are in. Its performance is not good enough to justify the cost. There is no purpose to carry extra seats. Rather than being about business class, this is about economy class. The Americans do not need to carry so many in economy class. Business class is preferably served by the shortest itinerary, even if it is by 757-ETOPS. Many 747s have been shed because they were unnecessary. This lesson is what informs Americans today.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ZKNBS
Posted 2010-06-09 08:25:18 and read 16829 times.

A few observations:

Most of the comments about how the U.S. frequency based system doesn't make sense are from people who don't live in the U.S. I find it interesting that you can consider yourself an expert on the U.S. economic system and the airline industry when you don't live here.

2nd Southwest was sited time and time again but just to clarify they don't operate a hub and spoke system. Never have and never will. They do have cities with large concentrations of operations but they do not operate as a hub and spoke system.

3rd I think our European friends especially are overlooking the reality that the U.S. commercial aviation market is much more mature than the European market. Low cost carriers have been a part of the landscape in this country for at least the last 30 years if not longer. The market was deregulated in the 1970's, while many European airlines continued to be wards of the state and operated with little competition domestically and internationally and were protected by their respective government interests. In the last 10 years the LCC phenomenon has really started to takeoff in Europe and the results are starting to speak for themselves. Traditional legacy carriers in Europea are being undercut by nimbler competitors like Ryanair and Easyjet and it is starting to have an effect.

4th the U.S. has far more gateway airports for both trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic travel and because of this fragmentation even with growth there is very little opportunity for A380 sized aircraft in U.S. airline fleets. For example if I want to travel to AMS from PDX I can go nonstop, or through Detroit, New York, Atlanta, LAX, Chicago, Houston etc...

5th the A380 like the 747 is not designed for making short domestic hops. The size of the aircraft and the turn around times make it impracticle on such routings especially IAD-JFK-BOS as was suggested. Even if you had the market to justify it you are never going to attract passengers onto an A380 for a flight segment like that as they will spend more time on the ground getting on and off the airplane as they will flying.

Before making judgements about the U.S. market I would suggest you spend some time living here then you will get a feel for the dynamics of the market and understand why the A380 or 747 just doesn't work in the U.S. market and probably won't ever work here.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 09:01:01 and read 16717 times.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 179):
The Americans do not need to carry so many in economy class. Business class is preferably served by the shortest itinerary, even if it is by 757-ETOPS.

Since apparently airlines in Europe do see the need to carry so many in economy class, and they certainly do not use 757s over the Atlantic, what do you think makes the U.S. unique? That's the question.

Quoting ZKNBS (Reply 180):
Most of the comments about how the U.S. frequency based system doesn't make sense are from people who don't live in the U.S. I find it interesting that you can consider yourself an expert on the U.S. economic system and the airline industry when you don't live here.

In case you are wondering about my Andorran flag, I am an American citizen (not by birth, so I guess I can't become the POTUS, damn it) who has lived for over 10 years in the U.S., mostly in California, and who now spends about three months every year in the U.S. with the remainder in Spain. As for the frequency issue, I have repeated my point of view several times here: frequency is crucial in short-haul business-heavy routes, in the USA, in Europe, in Japan, or in Brazil. Frequency is much less relevant in long-haul operations, which is where the 380 is relevant.

Quoting ZKNBS (Reply 180):
For example if I want to travel to AMS from PDX I can go nonstop, or through Detroit, New York, Atlanta, LAX, Chicago, Houston etc...

And if I want to travel to ATL from BCN, I can go non-stop or go through MAD, CDG, FRA, LHR, AMS, ZRH, MXP, etc. I don't see your point.

Quoting ZKNBS (Reply 180):
Before making judgements about the U.S. market I would suggest you spend some time living here then you will get a feel for the dynamics of the market and understand why the A380 or 747 just doesn't work in the U.S. market and probably won't ever work here.

I have spent quite some living time in the U.S., and I still don't understand why the 380 or 747 just don't work in the U.S. market. Even less why they won't ever work.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-09 09:11:12 and read 16691 times.

Quoting ZKNBS (Reply 180):
Before making judgements about the U.S. market I would suggest you spend some time living here then you will get a feel for the dynamics of the market and understand why the A380 or 747 just doesn't work in the U.S. market and probably won't ever work here.

You seem to have the same misunderstanding that most American have when they listen to the majority of the arguments above:

i) No one is saying US airlines should buy A380's for DOMESTIC routes
ii) No one is saying that US airlines are wrong about frequency on DOMESTIC routes; they are right and it's the same elsewhere
iii) What they are saying is that the US airline's DOMESTIC model applied to LONG HAUL INTERNATIONAL routes IS challengeable
iii) Frequency is not the key factory in choosing a flight on a 15h+ non-stop transPacific route or a 21hr+ Kangaroo route.
iv) What so many people are doing is arguing against the US domestic model when APPLIED TO long haul international operations. Many Americans on the forum then reply that non-Americans are not qualified to speak about US domestic travel.    They are totally missing the point of the discussion.

[Edited 2010-06-09 09:13:15]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-06-09 09:22:25 and read 16635 times.

My biggest argument for the A380 not being in the US goes along with many other arguments in this thread about the US being frequency vs capacity, and also with the make up of the traffic being skewed for far more short haul flights.

Two lists make the point about what is going on.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's...iest_airports_by_passenger_traffic
World's busiest airports have 14 airports out of 30 in the US.

2. http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...lds-largest-airports-in-2009/page1
The 10 busiest international airports don't have any US airports in the top 10.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries

The top orders 6 for the A380 come from airlines with hubs in the top 10 International airports.


The US just has far too many airlines and competition on routes as compared to other countries with international flights and cities.
If CASM was the main concern, then sure the A380 would win. Assuming you could always fill an A380. But you can't. And you can't always fill it to ensure RASM lives up to CASM when you have competition on routes.

There are far too many airlines and plane types on routes to make the A380 profitable for a US carrier.
Eventually the need may arise as populations increase, but that is far in the future, 20-30 years.

As a person with feet in the networking field, the A380 is like a terrabit network. It can hold the data, but are you pushing enough traffic through the pipline to justify the cost?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Flighty
Posted 2010-06-09 09:26:32 and read 16614 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 181):
Since apparently airlines in Europe do see the need to carry so many in economy class, and they certainly do not use 757s over the Atlantic, what do you think makes the U.S. unique? That's the question.

First of all, I do not pretend either the European or the USA side has bigger brains or a higher intelligence. They both make the correct decisions for their situation. In the USA an A380 would do nothing but lose money because our market is more fragmented and at a later stage of competitive (de)struction. You have to have faith that the airlines can calculate the costs and revenue of the A380, and the results do not encourage them to buy.

Europe vs USA.... Europe's airline maps resemble the USA in about 1985, before our mergers and before true coast-to-coast competition took hold. Until I see true battles in Europe (such as Lufthansa taking over BA or Aeroflot) then Europe will be able to stay more consolidated around high volume hubs. Europe also has language and cultural barriers undergirding these borders that our US states don't have. They are similar markets but their geography and competition laws have not been entirely similar.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 09:31:38 and read 16595 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 183):

The US just has far too many airlines and competition on routes as compared to other countries with international flights and cities.

I fully agree that the three points you mention in your post are very relevant to this discussion. But I don't understand this statement above. Europe has at least as many airlines and as much competition on routes as the U.S.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 09:39:17 and read 16552 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 183):
The top orders 6 for the A380 come from airlines with hubs in the top 10 International airports.

Actually, I don't think QF (with 20 orders the number two 380 operator) has a hub in any of the top 10 international airports, unless you consider SIN a QF hub. But anyway the point is taken.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-06-09 09:46:01 and read 16535 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 185):
Europe has at least as many airlines and as much competition on routes as the U.S.

It goes into the Busiest airports and International airports comparison. But it needs an illustration of major hubs vs travel.
If I am flying Air France to the US, or virgin or BA to the US I am flying out of 1 or 2 big hub cities. However if I fly the reverse direction on an American Carrier such as US Airways, American or United. I can be coming from a multitude of cities within the US.

Your example includes Europe as a whole, but if you look at airlines and competition on routes, there are far more spokes to europe from US Carriers than their are spokes to the US from European Carriers.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: bwvilla
Posted 2010-06-09 09:46:14 and read 16545 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 183):
The US just has far too many airlines and competition on routes as compared to other countries with international flights and cities.

But if a non-US carrier can use an A380 profitably on long-haul routes between the US and other countries, why can't a US carrier?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-09 09:48:13 and read 16545 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 183):
Two lists make the point about what is going on.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's...iest_airports_by_passenger_traffic
World's busiest airports have 14 airports out of 30 in the US.

2. http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...lds-largest-airports-in-2009/page1
The 10 busiest international airports don't have any US airports in the top 10.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries

The top orders 6 for the A380 come from airlines with hubs in the top 10 International airports.

The only reason there are no US destinations in the top 10 international airports is because the top 10 is dominated by Airports that can barely do domestic routes. HKG, SIN, DXB are virtually all international. LHR, CDG, AMS FRA are all heavily international.

How's about a nice diagram of the busiest routes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_passenger_air_routes

Notice 8 US domestic routes by pax in the top 20. But only 3 by frequecny, 1 of which is an intra-Hawaii flight. Granted more appear in the 20-30 region.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2010-06-09 09:51:46 and read 16524 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 186):
Actually, I don't think QF (with 20 orders the number two 380 operator) has a hub in any of the top 10 international airports, unless you consider SIN a QF hub. But anyway the point is taken.

Qantas has special considerations other airlines except ANZ have to deal with, Ausralia is just FAR from every place on teh face of the earth. The two primary A380 destinations, LAX and LHR, are 13 hours flying time and 7 times zones different & 9 hours and 20 hours fying time. Since frequency is not QF's prime concern on these two routes the A380 is the best plane to move lots of people. And QF does operate multiple A380's to both LHR & LAX, it must be John Leahy's favorite example but Emirates has to be his best client with 90 A380's and counting.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-06-09 10:07:26 and read 16485 times.

Quoting bwvilla (Reply 188):
But if a non-US carrier can use an A380 profitably on long-haul routes between the US and other countries, why can't a US carrier?

The Foreign carriers can afford to buy more A380's to serve throughout their network, while each US carrier can only afford a few for specific routes that they would either
a. be in competition with a foreign carrier already on the route
b. be in competition with a US competitor that would just increase frequency and routings.


Not a savy position. Especially with the 787 about to come online.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-06-09 10:11:19 and read 16474 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 189):
The only reason there are no US destinations in the top 10 international airports is because the top 10 is dominated by Airports that can barely do domestic routes

But these airports have international traffic , and generally long distance traffic that is condusive to the A380.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 189):
Notice 8 US domestic routes by pax in the top 20. But only 3 by frequecny, 1 of which is an intra-Hawaii flight. Granted more appear in the 20-30 region.

But these flights are not condusive to a VLA due to the routes comptetion or distance.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 10:31:32 and read 16430 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 189):
Notice 8 US domestic routes by pax in the top 20. But only 3 by frequecny, 1 of which is an intra-Hawaii flight. Granted more appear in the 20-30 region.

And no U.S. route among the top 10 in frequency. Hopefully this will debunk once and for all the A.net myth that frequency is king in the U.S., and only in the U.S., for some mysterious reason.  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-06-09 11:02:01 and read 16369 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 193):
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 189):
Notice 8 US domestic routes by pax in the top 20. But only 3 by frequecny, 1 of which is an intra-Hawaii flight. Granted more appear in the 20-30 region.

And no U.S. route among the top 10 in frequency. Hopefully this will debunk once and for all the A.net myth that frequency is king in the U.S., and only in the U.S., for some mysterious reason.

Don't get to caught up in those frequency numbers. Remember there is more point to point service in the US and less hubbing.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-06-09 11:03:34 and read 16368 times.

If we view the A380 as only being for long-haul flights, there are simply very few long-haul flights that U.S. carriers operate that can profitably fill an A380 on a regular basis. Take DL, the largest carrier in the world. I'm hard pressed to find more than a handful of routes where DL could really use an A380 and be competitive. And given the cost, DL's not likely going to order just a handful of A380's.

For the foreign carriers, they have a larger number of routes with the volume that demands an A380....in part because they serve some very large markets and in part because many of the A380 operators have only 1 or 2 hubs in their whole system.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: mikey72
Posted 2010-06-09 11:09:04 and read 16356 times.

I'll tell you why it is. It's because after Pan Am and TWA the U.S let the grass grow under their feet when it comes to civil aviation.

There is absolutely no reason why American carriers shouldn't have multiple widebodies. Like somebody else said, if everyone else can do it why can't they ?

DL, UA/CO and AA(?) now need to up their game, go large, get some decent onboard service going and kick ass !! (Lose the shabby reputation for good)

I've been thinking it for years, I just don't understand why it doesn't happen ?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 12:07:45 and read 16254 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 194):
Remember there is more point to point service in the US and less hubbing.

But those super-frequent routes in the top ten are not hub to hub. They are just big city to big city: BCN-MAD, CGH-SDU, MEL-SYD, CPT-JNB, etc. The largest in the USA (# 13, 19 and 20) are HNL-OGG, LAX-SFO, and LAX-SAN. Nothing different, except for the singularity of the intra-Hawai'i route. The world at large is not so different from the USA as some people here seem to think.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-06-09 12:18:53 and read 16232 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 197):
But those super-frequent routes in the top ten are not hub to hub. They are just big city to big city: BCN-MAD, CGH-SDU, MEL-SYD, CPT-JNB, etc. The largest in the USA (# 13, 19 and 20) are HNL-OGG, LAX-SFO, and LAX-SAN. Nothing different, except for the singularity of the intra-Hawai'i route. The world at large is not so different from the USA as some people here seem to think.

Did you happen to notice that those are specific airport to airport frequencies you are quoting. LAX -SFO and LAX JFK don't include such things as the other 3/4/5 sorrounding airports in each of these cities. The fact that OLG-HNL ranks highest ofthe US pairs should give a clue.

I live in Raleigh, about the 48th largest city in the US. No Hubs for any airline. Yet I can get to 30+ cities nonstop, including Toronto, Los Angeles , and London. Trust me frequency and direct routes rule the day here.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-09 13:13:38 and read 16168 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 198):
I live in Raleigh, about the 48th largest city in the US. No Hubs for any airline. Yet I can get to 30+ cities nonstop, including Toronto, Los Angeles , and London. Trust me frequency and direct routes rule the day here.

You're not going to prove a lot with one example. And 30+ is hardly something to shout about anyway.

Let's take the 100th biggest city in the EU. Timişoara, in Romania, which i frankly have never heard of. It too has 30+ (34 i count) destinations. It's a similar population to RDU however Romania does have a fraction of the GDP pc of Carolina/Western Europe.

Though there's not a very consistent correlation between size and # of services on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Edited 2010-06-09 13:14:38]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Superfly
Posted 2010-06-09 13:31:31 and read 16124 times.

US airlines are too damn cheap to order 747-8s and A380s.  

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Jambrain
Posted 2010-06-09 13:39:35 and read 16097 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 183):
The US just has far too many airlines and competition on routes as compared to other countries with international flights and cities.

Europe and America are not so different, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's...er_air_routes#cite_note-Eurostat-3
US have 8 cities in cities that make make up world top 20 city pairs "By total volume of passengers"

New York City,  San Francisco,  Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Chicago

Europe has 7!!
Rome, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Milan, Dublin, Marseille

Busiest air routes between an airport in Europe and outside of Europe
US have 4
Washington/Washington Dulles Intl
New York/John F Kennedy Intl
Chicago/Chicago Ohare Intl
Los Angeles/Los Angeles Intl

Europe has 3
London/Heathrow
Paris/Charles De Gaulle
Paris/Orly

hardly a massive difference!

I wonder as a non US observer if the US legies are still remembering their over exuberance in ordering 747s which then flew 1/2 empty for many years.

As many have said the market will in the end decide if they are being too cautious this time around!

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-09 13:41:41 and read 16130 times.

Quoting ATLflyer (Thread starter):
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? 

I think the title should be : Why Didn't US Carriers Order The A380?

We have at least 20 yrs to go..

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ssides
Posted 2010-06-09 13:42:15 and read 16121 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 200):
US airlines are too damn cheap to order 747-8s and A380s.

Yeah, they've got tons of cash lying around to make a very risky buy of several of the largest airliners ever manufactured.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 196):
There is absolutely no reason why American carriers shouldn't have multiple widebodies. Like somebody else said, if everyone else can do it why can't they ?

Most US carriers do have multiple widebodies. AA flies the 777 and 767. DL flies the 747, 777, 767 and A330. US flies the 767 and A330. UA flies the 747, 777, and 767. CO flies the 777 and 767. Several have ordered the 787.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 196):
I've been thinking it for years, I just don't understand why it doesn't happen ?

Because the American consumer has, time and time again, voted with their feet and dollars and indicated that they prefer (a) frequency over larger aircraft, and (b) price above service. For those of us on A.net, it's sometimes difficult to understand, but we are in large part aviation aficionados first, and consumers second. John Q. Airline Passenger is a consumer first.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 13:43:14 and read 16130 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 198):
Did you happen to notice that those are specific airport to airport frequencies you are quoting

Yes, I did. If one were to add up all flights from the Los Angeles area to the San Francisco Bay area, the route would be one of the top in the world. I did the exercise once and it came up second, right after BCN-MAD.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 198):
I live in Raleigh, about the 48th largest city in the US. No Hubs for any airline. Yet I can get to 30+ cities nonstop, including Toronto, Los Angeles , and London. Trust me frequency and direct routes rule the day here.

I live in Barcelona, second largest city in Spain, definitely a secondary airport in Europe. It is a pathetic hub for a pathetic airline (JK). IB has all but abandoned the city. Yet I can fly non-stop to about 150 destinations, including New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Toronto, Doha,... Frequency and direct routes are just as important here as they are over there.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-09 13:47:45 and read 16125 times.

Quoting ssides (Reply 203):
voted with their feet and dollars and indicated that they prefer (a) frequency over larger aircraft,

How and when have they indicated this? Half this thread has been devoted to prove that this is a myth. Frequency in short, business-oriented routes is as valued in the USA as anywhere else in the world (as it should be!), while frequency in long-haul routes is mostly irrelevant, in the US and elsewhere..

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: manfredj
Posted 2010-06-09 13:55:27 and read 16111 times.

Everyone's answer all lead to one definitive reason: an absolute free market economy.

Listen, if airline A decides to purchase a 380 and cuts frequency on coast to coast domestic flights from 5 to one flight a day, it would work for about 3 months before the other airlines caught on.

The other airlines would, in turn, fill the void of the 4 lost flights from airline A with smaller aircraft. This is all about frequency above capacity and always will be in our free market economy. Americans use more oil than any other country....that should be proof enough that we are more about convenience than economy.

Complaints about the cost of providing such luxuries? Another airline will come along and figure out how to have increased frequency AND lower cost. Southwest was the pioneer in that respect....you gotta love a free market economy. Healthy competition and lower taxes.

I'm not sure if I fully buy the "hub" philosophy that US airlines have more hubs and consequently don't need the heavier metal. There are plenty of long haul, or very long haul flights out of the United States from US carriers that could certainly use more metal than a 757. Instead they have, again, chosen more flights over capacity. The 757 has been the main catalyst of increased frequency on US-European flights....

and one would think the 380 would have been the airplane that gave people the freedom to move around the world in a cheaper more convenient fashion. How incredible is the 757?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Superfly
Posted 2010-06-09 13:56:17 and read 16112 times.

Quoting ssides (Reply 203):
Yeah, they've got tons of cash lying around to make a very risky buy of several of the largest airliners ever manufactured.

Do we really need 85+ flights a day on smaller aircraft between major US cities?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-06-09 14:00:47 and read 16098 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 207):
Do we really need 85+ flights a day on smaller aircraft between major US cities?

Depends on how much competition you want. If you only want 2 or 3 competitors in the NYC-LAX market, then an A380 would work. But if you want 8-10 carriers competing and giving you lower fares, then you'll have smaller aircraft.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-09 14:03:18 and read 16101 times.

Quoting manfredj (Reply 206):
Listen, if airline A decides to purchase a 380 and cuts frequency on coast to coast domestic flights from 5 to one flight a day, it would work for about 3 months before the other airlines caught on.

It's not the black and white. An airline doing 20 flights a week between 2 long haul places can reduce them to 16 by using an A380 e.g. 5 times a week, lowering costs and using crews and slots to generate revenue elsewhere.

IMO it's a question of when, not if.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00011542.jpg

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-09 14:07:30 and read 16077 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 207):
Do we really need 85+ flights a day on smaller aircraft between major US cities?

No, and that is one of the reasons US carriers are losing money all the time with all those tiny aircraft.

Quoting manfredj (Reply 206):

Why do people always think the A380 used by an American airline would have to fly domestic? If they ever get them, they'll use them for flights were frequency doesn't matter that much, because flight time and time zones allow only a small window of the day were you can start or land the flights, unless you want pax to take off at 5 in the morning and land at2 in the night at their destination.

A380s are not supposed to fly BOS-JFK-IAD-PHL-ATL-MIA. They are made to fly from the US to PEK, PVG, SIN, SYD, NRT, HKG, ICN etc. That is were they can make money, more than 747s, 777s, and the rest of the game.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-09 14:20:01 and read 16027 times.

Quoting manfredj (Reply 206):
'm not sure if I fully buy the "hub" philosophy that US airlines have more hubs and consequently don't need the heavier metal. There are plenty of long haul, or very long haul flights out of the United States from US carriers that could certainly use more metal than a 757. Instead they have, again, chosen more flights over capacity. The 757 has been the main catalyst of increased frequency on US-European flights....

Well BA still have the most flights LON-NYC of any airline per day and they still use 744s on last time i checked 4 flights. So unless US airlines really are that horrible to fly on i'd say the hub thing is important.

As for the 757, unless you need the cargo on 3000nm it probably has a comparable or even better CASM to most widebodies that are designed to lug tons of cargo and fuel around, so you don't really lose out.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: DCA-ROCguy
Posted 2010-06-09 14:42:31 and read 15975 times.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 177):
Quite true (the noise factor also plays into the property value issue as well BTW) although I know of at least one scenario where the noise issue was a bunch of

  
By any objective measure, the noise issue usually is indeed a bunch of Mr. Hankey. Aircraft are exponentially quieter today than the Mohawk/ Allegheny BAC-111 screamers I remember from my childhood.   I remember when MD-80's were the new "quiet" a/c at home at ROC!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 174):
With the merges though, this should help things for the airliners, and i believe this helps the customer too. At the end of the day unsurvivable competition just leads to desperation and deception. Making things like gradual decline in service, hidden charges, and defensive short term strategies necessary to stay afloat. None of which helps the customer.

That's a meme repeated here often: "unsurvivable competition." I'm not buying it. Fares are up, up up everywhere I'm flying from the highly competitive DC market this year, not to mention fees, and lots of a/c have headed to the desert, as we all know. I hear the same thing about fares from enough fellow travelers that I'm willing to disregard claims by legacy executives, and analysts who of course don't like competition because they want stably very-high profit margins. The claim of overcapacity is self-serving BS. There is no need for mergers in the USA. Better management is needed.

Even if the remaining USA legacies do mergers, I for one still doubt the A380 would be useful to USA carriers. Folks at A.net can continue to have fun doing fantasy photoshop jobs.

Jim

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: bwvilla
Posted 2010-06-09 15:02:16 and read 15926 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 191):
The Foreign carriers can afford to buy more A380's to serve throughout their network, while each US carrier can only afford a few for specific routes that they would either
a. be in competition with a foreign carrier already on the route
b. be in competition with a US competitor that would just increase frequency and routings.

From LH, BA, AF perspective, they are also competing with foreign carriers on most longhaul routes. And for BA, they are competing with a local competitor on some of those longhaul routes.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-09 15:11:20 and read 15908 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 212):
That's a meme repeated here often: "unsurvivable competition." I'm not buying it. Fares are up, up up everywhere I'm flying from the highly competitive DC market this year, not to mention fees, and lots of a/c have headed to the desert, as we all know. I hear the same thing about fares from enough fellow travelers that I'm willing to disregard claims by legacy executives, and analysts who of course don't like competition because they want stably very-high profit margins. The claim of overcapacity is self-serving BS. There is no need for mergers in the USA. Better management is needed.

NW, US, UA, DL and nearly AA went into C11 in the last decade and you don't think there's too much competition?

Many US airlines are posting losses - some heavy - yet you want lower fares?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-09 15:28:56 and read 15855 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 209):
It's not the black and white. An airline doing 20 flights a week between 2 long haul places can reduce them to 16 by using an A380 e.g. 5 times a week, lowering costs and using crews and slots to generate revenue elsewhere.

Any US carrier that tries that is going to have their competitors eat their breakfast, because they will have the flights they've canceled filled by others. You then have the possibility of a fare war, but on any route the A380 makes any kind of sense, the competition will match fares; the route would be too strategically valuable not to. You'd then be faced with your premium passengers choosing (when possible) once again on schedule, which the A380 operator is now disadvantaged at.

But hey, in a sense, DL already operates the 380 as it's taking a portion of the revenue of AF's flight to JFK. Perhaps we will see LH and BA 380s here doing the same for UA and AA.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-06-09 17:13:34 and read 15708 times.

Quoting manfredj (Reply 206):
There are plenty of long haul, or very long haul flights out of the United States from US carriers that could certainly use more metal than a 757. Instead they have, again, chosen more flights over capacity. The 757 has been the main catalyst of increased frequency on US-European flights....

So those destinations from the US that the 757 flies to can support an A380, how many 757's are being operated into LHR by US carriers since the Open Skies, with the switch to LHR have the numbers diminished?
That's another aspect to be looked at from the US side, to get around slot restrictions but still offer international service they attempted routes into secondary cities, starting up such a route with an A380 or 747 size a/c is a greater risk, the 757 was ideal, similar to the rise of the 767 and A330 when they offered comparable range to the 747, until those long range twins arrived, the 747, DC10 and L1011 were the only game in town.
The A380 has arrived at a time when its range is matched by large twins, so it must compete on other terms, no one is going to buy the a/c just for the range, there must be other reasons chief of which is the ability to "fill the a/c".
If we were looking at the US as a markets rather than politically we can see other regions where the use of the A380 could be "problematic", BA operates multiple flights into the Caribbean region, how many of them can support a single A380, to make it profitable would they have to reduce frequency, will pax accept that or attempt to get to their destination when they want to by using another carrier and or route? The greatest thing the A380 has going for it is the load factor required for profitability, however, this is also subject to the route and the fares than can be charged, perception being what it is, folks might think it is a loosing flight if they see that many empty seats.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: kanban
Posted 2010-06-09 17:15:13 and read 15712 times.

OK forget the A380 for US domestic routes, looking at the international routes, what are the current load factors?.. If they are averaging in the 60-70 % why would one want a larger aircraft? That would require the same logic used in another thread maintaining the if a second A380 line was established, more airlines would buy the plane... someone above commented that we have to remember our bias as airline workers/aficionados... not airline managers or general public passengers. Someone else noted that the vast majority of US citizens never go abroad.. Mexico and Canada maybe not even enough go to Hawaii to justify a fleet of A380's and all three destinations are basically "domestic"...

So it's not going to happen in the next ten years...

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: DCA-ROCguy
Posted 2010-06-09 20:30:01 and read 15529 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 214):
NW, US, UA, DL and nearly AA went into C11 in the last decade and you don't think there's too much competition? Many US airlines are posting losses - some heavy - yet you want lower fares?

Absolutely, there isn't too much competition. NW, US, UA, DL all *did* go into Chapter 11 in the past decade, and came out of it leaner and meaner. They had unviable cost structures, but their existence wasn't unviable. (Though I admit at the time I thought US's was; history proved me wrong.) AA, the only USA legacy who *didn't* go into Chapter 11 at least once in the last 20 years, is the one who seems to have the most problematic costs. UA and US were criticized for not doing enough with their bankruptcies. But they obviously did enough to survive.

Bad management, and unions who didn't accept that the entire game had changed after both Deregulation and 9/11, have been the problems. Competition isn't the problem.

Since I nowhere called for airlines to lower fares beyond where they got in the past decade, it's unclear why you say I want lower fares than the system produced. Airlines need to make money, and they don't need to gouge people to do it if they're properly managed. Life is much easier for legacy carriers when they can slack off and gouge, as lots of US consumers found out in the 1990's when large swaths of the USA did not have meaningful LCC presence.

One thing US legacy carriers *aren't* likely to do, to worsen their cost issues, is order the A380.

Jim

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Superfly
Posted 2010-06-09 20:35:19 and read 15518 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 210):
No, and that is one of the reasons US carriers are losing money all the time with all those tiny aircraft.

(checkmark}

I was thinking the same.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 208):
if you want 8-10 carriers competing and giving you lower fares, then you'll have smaller aircraft.

So how come the fares aren't that low?
How come I can get a $60 ticket between cities in Asia on premium carriers on 747s and A340s at a moment's notice?
Fares between SFO-ORD, JFK and other major cites are much higher than intra-Asian cities and they're on little A320s, 737s and increasingly more CRJs.
I fail to see the smaller aircraft/smaller fares connection. If anything, it's the opposite.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FX1816
Posted 2010-06-09 21:38:36 and read 15457 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 219):
Fares between SFO-ORD, JFK and other major cites are much higher than intra-Asian cities and they're on little A320s, 737s and increasingly more CRJs.

Who's flying CRJ's on routes like SFO-JFK??? That would be a huge mistake if anyone was.

FX1816

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ericaasen
Posted 2010-06-09 22:09:19 and read 15419 times.

It's been said a dozen or so times so far. But if I'm flying from NRT to the US on DL I have 10 non-stops to choose from! DL operates non-stops between NRT and HNL, LAX, SFO, PDX, SEA, SLC, MSP, DTW, JFK, and ATL. And the last five are all hubs and I can get pretty much anywhere else with 1 connection.

If I'm flying from NRT to France, how many non-stops to different cities do I get? How about Singapore, Australia, the UAE, Germany, and the UK?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: mikey72
Posted 2010-06-09 23:39:50 and read 15318 times.

Quoting ssides (Reply 203):
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 196):
There is absolutely no reason why American carriers shouldn't have multiple widebodies. Like somebody else said, if everyone else can do it why can't they ?

Most US carriers do have multiple widebodies. AA flies the 777 and 767. DL flies the 747, 777, 767 and A330. US flies the 767 and A330. UA flies the 747, 777, and 767. CO flies the 777 and 767. Several have ordered the 787.

Sorry I should of said a greater concentration of very large aircraft on certain routes.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 00:03:09 and read 15290 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 218):
One thing US legacy carriers *aren't* likely to do, to worsen their cost issues, is order the A380.

The 380 has the lowest CASM of any airplane out there. How would operating 380s "worsen the cost issues" of the U.S. legacies?

Quoting ericaasen (Reply 221):
If I'm flying from NRT to France, how many non-stops to different cities do I get? How about Singapore, Australia, the UAE, Germany, and the UK?

The question would rather be, what are the non-stop options when flying from NRT to Europe. Or from SIN, HKG, etc. And the answer is many. LHR, CDG, AMS, FRA, MUC, ZRH, MXP, FCO, CPH, HEL, MAD, IST and others have non-stop service to one or several of these Asian cities. Now, you chose NRT as an example. But it is by far the Asian destination with more non-stops flights to the USA. Try HKG, or PEK or ICN.

I wonder why you included the UAE in your post. I'm sure you know that EK flies from DXB to very many cities in Europe non-stop.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-06-10 03:35:50 and read 15151 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 223):
The question would rather be, what are the non-stop options when flying from NRT to Europe.

Why, if someone wants to go from NRT to France are they going looking for flights to France or to Europe, same for the US, will they go looking for flights to North America?

Open skies is a wonderful discussion for airlines, governments and aviation fans, but for residents of countries when they need to get to a certain city in a country they look for the simple option. Integration is bringing Europe closer together but to the rest of the world they are still individual countries and regarded as such for pax travel, someone needing to get to LHR for a meeting is not going looking for flights to Germany, Spain, etc. especially on a long haul which is planned for ahead of time and is usually not spur of the minute.

For statistics however and to prove a point, yes, you can compare the entire European market with that of the US to show why the A380 is the perfect a/c, what you are then left with are the notions that the Americans refuse to buy and operate the A380 because they are against Airbus products, or their management is so bad that have no clue how to run an airline, which would then lead one to wonder why folks would want such carriers to buy the a/c in the first place.  

The majority of US carriers abandoned the 747 size a/c in any numbers years ago, is the economics of the A380 so great compelling that the a/c alone would dictate its use and not the market or desires of the airlines?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-10 04:14:58 and read 15078 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 224):
Why, if someone wants to go from NRT to France are they going looking for flights to France or to Europe, same for the US, will they go looking for flights to North America?

Someone who wants to go to NYC isn't going to look for flights to HNL either is he? If you want to go to Lyon or Marseille you going to be as screwed as you would be if you want to go to BOS or PHI.

NRT is a poor example as it's a hub/focus city for 2 US airlines anyway.

Let's take ICN. From here you only have 2 US airlines serving either SFO (UA) or DTW (DL) (both also serve NRT). With AF/KL you have CDG and AMS, with LH you have MUC and FRA. You can also get to HEL from AY, and SVO with SU.

Many examples are being thrown around and it's all very similar.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: ozglobal
Posted 2010-06-10 05:24:08 and read 14986 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 224):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 223):
The question would rather be, what are the non-stop options when flying from NRT to Europe.

Why, if someone wants to go from NRT to France are they going looking for flights to France or to Europe, same for the US, will they go looking for flights to North America?

Open skies is a wonderful discussion for airlines, governments and aviation fans, but for residents of countries when they need to get to a certain city in a country they look for the simple option. Integration is bringing Europe closer together but to the rest of the world they are still individual countries and regarded as such for pax travel, someone needing to get to LHR for a meeting is not going looking for flights to Germany, Spain, etc. especially on a long haul which is planned for ahead of time and is usually not spur of the minute.

Again, for those who don't do a lot of long haul travel, you need to understand that the criteria are different:

- Cost - What's the best deal is key for most travellers, this is still true on long haul over schedule
- Comfort - Since I'm going to be on in the plane for 15 - 30hrs (eg. LAX-SYD or CDG-LHR-SIN-MEL) I want to be as comfortable as possible and this will REALLY make a big difference to the quality of my business or vacation time!
- Miles on your FF scheme - Since I'm doing up to 40 000 km (25 000 miles), I want to get the miles to leverage for other travel!! Hence, alliance is of key importance
- Duration - If I cannot be in J or F, duration is important, on the other hand, time for a shower and duty free shopping at LHR, SIN, BKK or HKG or DXB is very welcome, so duration is not everything! Hence, direct flights are less important that an affordable seat in the next class eg Y+ or J!!
- Schedule - The only real schedule requirement on long haul is whether I want a morning or evening arrival. With up to 11 time zones difference and 20+ hrs to travel, frequency is SO NOT KING here!
- Frequency - Last priority of all

These are the typical priorities of long haul travellers, including myself.

Examples: I usually look for deals in J for long haul and hence accept indirect routings: eg. CDG-LHR-SIN/BKK-SYD/MEL or CDG-LCY-JFK on BA rather than CDG-SIN-SYD/MEL on AF/QF codeshare or CDG-JFK on AF or other.

[Edited 2010-06-10 05:29:01]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-06-10 05:46:23 and read 14956 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 219):
So how come the fares aren't that low?

Have you actually looked at fares? You can fly LAX-JFK for as little as $300 r/t. Considering the distance traveled, that is dirt cheap.....and far cheaper than when U.S. carriers used to use lots of widebodies on the routes (I know AA still does before anyone points it out).

Quoting Superfly (Reply 219):
How come I can get a $60 ticket between cities in Asia on premium carriers on 747s and A340s at a moment's notice?

Not really comparable and has little to do with aircraft size. In order to compare fares, you'd have to adjust for currency differences, labor costs and cost of living.

And I don't know where you are finding these $60 fares on routes in Asia with an equivalent length as LAX-JFK. I priced out SQ (a premium A380 user) on routes like SIN-NRT and SIN-TPE and fares are no where near $60.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 06:12:28 and read 14890 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 224):
Why, if someone wants to go from NRT to France are they going looking for flights to France or to Europe, same for the US, will they go looking for flights to North America?

Well, RJ111 has already said what I wanted to say (thank you!), but I'll repeat it nonetheless. For a person who wants to travel from Tokyo to Portland, Oregon, the non-stop NRT-PDX is fantastic, but the non-stop NRT-EWR is pretty damn useless. How is that different from somebody who wants to travel from Tokyo to Paris, for whom NRT-CDG is great, but NRT-HEL, well, not so much? The fact that Helsinki is in a different country from Paris, whereas Newark is in the same country as Portland is pretty much irrelevant.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: DCA-ROCguy
Posted 2010-06-10 07:21:03 and read 14774 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 223):
The 380 has the lowest CASM of any airplane out there. How would operating 380s "worsen the cost issues" of the U.S. legacies?

The A380's very good CASM is not the problem. As others have explained well, it's too big for USA legacies' business model, so they'd have a hard time filling it profitably and consistently while still offering frequency (which in transoceanic flights may simply be a second daily--but that's very valuable). *Maybe* UA and DL could use it across the Pacific, but even there traffic has been fragmenting. You don't need to pack as many people onto the biggest plane to make use of a limited Narita slot just to get them to most Asian destinations anymore.

Jim

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-10 07:28:26 and read 14751 times.

CASM only matters if you are filling the plane beyond where you beat out the trip costs of the smaller plane you were flying. While the A380 may be cheaper per seat than the 767 or A330 (the backbones of DL's intl operation), I rather doubt the trip costs are lower.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 07:31:50 and read 14745 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 229):
As others have explained well, it's too big for USA legacies' business model, so they'd have a hard time filling it profitably and consistently

This is may or may not be true, but in any case it would affect the revenue (and yield) of the USA legacies, not their costs.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-06-10 07:40:43 and read 14725 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 225):
NRT is a poor example as it's a hub/focus city for 2 US airlines anyway.

Since it has only two us carriers one could make the assumption that it would be an ideal market for A380 service, would US to NRT traffic be that great, and when we say US, how may different airports are we talking about?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 225):
Let's take ICN. From here you only have 2 US airlines serving either SFO (UA) or DTW (DL) (both also serve NRT). With AF/KL you have CDG and AMS, with LH you have MUC and FRA. You can also get to HEL from AY, and SVO with SU.

Same as above, but the poster below illustrate the point more clearly.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 187):
It goes into the Busiest airports and International airports comparison. But it needs an illustration of major hubs vs travel.
If I am flying Air France to the US, or virgin or BA to the US I am flying out of 1 or 2 big hub cities. However if I fly the reverse direction on an American Carrier such as US Airways, American or United. I can be coming from a multitude of cities within the US.

That is the problem that US carriers face, population density is not as high as in Europe, the number of airports with international service is greater which makes it difficult for airlines to channel traffic into major hubs to utilize larger a/c. Miami is regarded as a hub for AA, expect it can hardly be viewed as a domestic hub based on it's location and traffic pattern, DFW on the other hand can be used to funnel traffic simply based on it geographic location. If folks can get to Europe from Orlando versus going south to Miami to make a connection, do you loose some potential pax, same could be said for Tampa even Ft. Lauderdale and these are just in one state, I use Flroida as it is a huge tourist destination, A380 markets can also be for leisure traveller since it CASM cost are competitive.

Already mentioned, but domestic travel in the US is mainly road or plane, so if you have to fly, more airports are available and since a lot of the airports are independent of the airlines, they get together with business houses in their region to promote and support international travel, another detriment to the airlines and their hub operations.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: norcal
Posted 2010-06-10 07:43:49 and read 14725 times.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 218):
Bad management, and unions who didn't accept that the entire game had changed after both Deregulation and 9/11, have been the problems. Competition isn't the problem.

Airline labor has given up a ton of pay and worked increased hours since deregulation. In fact it's been our sacrifices that have allowed you to fly cheaper. Our wage concessions have subsidized your cheap ticket. Those concessions were intended to shore up our airlines profitability but because of management's desire to chase market share and the simple fact that there is too much competition forced ticket prices lower. The last three decades of concessions has done nothing to shore up airline profitability. That leaves on conclusion, there are too many competitors in the market, some need to exit.

Do we really need UA, CO, DL, US, AA, AS, F9, WN, NK, B6, Virgin America, Allegiant, and FL (plus a whole bunch of smaller carriers) competing with each other all over the nation and internationally? I think 3 legacies, 3-4 low cost carriers, plus Alaska would provide plenty of competition both domestically and internationally.


Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 218):
Airlines need to make money, and they don't need to gouge people to do it if they're properly managed. Life is much easier for legacy carriers when they can slack off and gouge, as lots of US consumers found out in the 1990's when large swaths of the USA did not have meaningful LCC presence.

"Gouging" would exist if airlines were actually making money, instead of losing billions of dollars. Passengers refuse to pay the true cost of the ticket up front so we have to try and recover the costs somehow.

New Flash, we run a business not a social service. If our fares are "going up, up, up" and you don't like it feel free to choose another form of travel.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 223):
The 380 has the lowest CASM of any airplane out there. How would operating 380s "worsen the cost issues" of the U.S. legacies?

Low CASM is great if you can profitably fill the seats. The US market can't do that on enough routes to currently justify the added cost of a small fleet of A380s. US airlines would rather operate a 777/A330 and leave the lowest yield passengers behind. I see nothing wrong with that.

If I'm moving out of a 2-bedroom house do I get the small U-Haul or do I get the gigantic 18 wheeler? The 18-wheeler will certainly have a lower cost on a lb/mile comparison but overall cost will be significantly higher.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 07:44:00 and read 14732 times.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 230):
While the A380 may be cheaper per seat than the 767 or A330 (the backbones of DL's intl operation), I rather doubt the trip costs are lower.

Of course the 380 is cheaper per seat. And of course it isn't per trip. If flying a 380 would be cheaper than flying a 767 on a trip basis, well, the right choice of aircraft would be a no-brainer, wouldn't it? And the fact is that it is not a no-brainer, since different airlines are coming up with different decisions. It all comes down to the choice between sending, say, 6 daily 767s JFK-LHR or sending 3 388s. The latter is cheaper. The former allows for extra frequency. However, when 5 out of those 6 flights depart in a 4 hour window between 6:30 pm and 10:30 pm, it's not obvious to me that those 5 flights cannot be consolidated into 2 or 3, with a considerable cost advantage. Of course, this wouldn't work for, say, PHL-BCN...

[Edited 2010-06-10 07:57:57]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 07:53:09 and read 14703 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 232):
That is the problem that US carriers face, population density is not as high as in Europe,

But naively it seems to me that lower population density should actually favor the emergence of a few large hubs from where to channel the traffic, and not the opposite.

Quoting norcal (Reply 233):
If I'm moving out of a 2-bedroom house do I get the small U-Haul or do I get the gigantic 18 wheeler?

When you move out of your house there's a fixed amount of stuff you need to carry. With a larger airplane you have an opportunity to carry more passengers, and increase your business. Long-distance freight transportation uses the 18-wheelers, not the U-Haul vans.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2010-06-10 07:56:47 and read 14685 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 234):
It all comes down to the choice between sending, say, 6 daily 767s JFK-LHR or sending 3 388s.

It also comes down how much connecting pax are on those flights. If that number can be reduced because their origin on the US-side gets a direct LHR flight as well, the flight outbound from JFK may be operated with a smaller aircraft. That's route fragmentation.

It works against A380 like high frequencies and it may explain also why US airlines operate no many VLA's.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-10 08:01:03 and read 14665 times.

Which once again brings us back to the frequency argument.The problem with consolidating LHR flights was addressed above; you lose your premium pax to other people flying at the time more convenient to them.

The US airlines have been in a frenzy of cost cutting. Honestly, don't you think that if they thought they could consolidate those flights they would? Absolutely no one is questioning the validity of the cost saving; they are questioning whether you could apply them to the US market because of the amount of competition.

That said, I am wonder how the cost of acquisition would figure in. Yes, you would denfinitely save money, but say, would DL save enough to offset the acquisition costs of the plane over just continuing to fly it's 764s into the ground?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 08:01:10 and read 14669 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 236):
If that number can be reduced because their origin on the US-side gets a direct LHR flight as well, the flight outbound from JFK may be operated with a smaller aircraft.

Well, yes, but I wasn't making up those numbers! BA operates 5 744s and one 772 every day JFK-LHR. And they do fly to LHR from many more (10?) US cities. AA sends 5 777s per day. Some consolidation of flights is possible.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: norcal
Posted 2010-06-10 08:05:37 and read 14647 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 235):
With a larger airplane you have an opportunity to carry more passengers, and increase your business. Long-distance freight transportation uses the 18-wheelers, not the U-Haul vans.

But if the opportunity doesn't exist or isn't profitable, then what is the point of operating the 18-wheeler?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 08:06:42 and read 14649 times.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 237):
The problem with consolidating LHR flights was addressed above; you lose your premium pax to other people flying at the time more convenient to them.

Not really. On Aug 5th 2010 (a random date) BA will fly between JFK and LHR at: 8:40 am, 6:20 pm, 6:50 pm, 7:35 pm, 9:35 pm, 10:40 pm. You are not going to lose a significant number of premium pax by consolidating your schedule to, say, 8:40 am, 6:30 pm, 8:00 pm, 10:00 pm.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 08:13:23 and read 14620 times.

Quoting norcal (Reply 239):
But if the opportunity doesn't exist or isn't profitable, then what is the point of operating the 18-wheeler?

Then there would be no point. But this is what we are discussing here. Just writing that "the US market cannot fill a 380 profitably" doesn't make it automatically true.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-10 08:14:01 and read 14624 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 238):
And they do fly to LHR from many more (10?) US cities.
BA fly to 18 US cities and 4 Canadian ones from LHR. Also LCY-JFK and LGW-MCO.

I might add though that 6 dailies to JFK is important - It is more apparent on the return leg where the flight window allows more spread frequencies. I don't think there would be sense adding more, but it is one of the biggest markets in the world. I suspect only LHR-HKG beats it in annual ASMs.

Halving frequencies to add the A380 doesn't make sense on many routes. A 25% reduction to add the A380 makes more sense, like what SQ have done.

[Edited 2010-06-10 08:24:42]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-10 08:18:21 and read 14601 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 240):
Not really. On Aug 5th 2010 (a random date) BA will fly between JFK and LHR at: 8:40 am, 6:20 pm, 6:50 pm, 7:35 pm, 9:35 pm, 10:40 pm. You are not going to lose a significant number of premium pax by consolidating your schedule to, say, 8:40 am, 6:30 pm, 8:00 pm, 10:00 pm.

What time are the CO and DL flights?

I should add to this. I expect to see the BA A380 in JFK. This is a thread about American carriers. It would probably be more apt to compare their schedules against the others.

[Edited 2010-06-10 08:19:20]

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-10 08:18:54 and read 14601 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 238):
Well, yes, but I wasn't making up those numbers! BA operates 5 744s and one 772 every day JFK-LHR. And they do fly to LHR from many more (10?) US cities. AA sends 5 777s per day. Some consolidation of flights is possible.

Some? That is eleven flights with 2944 seats in how many hours? 6? 8?

Should be done with 6 A388s. That would reduce costs significantly and free up precious LHR and JFK slots.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FX1816
Posted 2010-06-10 08:39:02 and read 14555 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 244):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 238):
Well, yes, but I wasn't making up those numbers! BA operates 5 744s and one 772 every day JFK-LHR. And they do fly to LHR from many more (10?) US cities. AA sends 5 777s per day. Some consolidation of flights is possible.

Some? That is eleven flights with 2944 seats in how many hours? 6? 8?

Should be done with 6 A388s. That would reduce costs significantly and free up precious LHR and JFK slots.

That's pretty simplistic don't you think?? Even if AA and BA were to consolidate all of their flights into 6 A380 flights don't you think that DL, UA, or CO would step in and increase their frequency just to appeal more to the customer.

I don't recall who posted it and I don't have time to find it but don't you all think that the US air carriers have already looked up the pro's and con's to utilizing VLA's??

FX1816

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2010-06-10 08:50:03 and read 14544 times.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 245):
Even if AA and BA were to consolidate all of their flights into 6 A380 flights don't you think that DL, UA, or CO would step in and increase their frequency just to appeal more to the customer.

Little can be gained by operating more than 6 flights in a day. BA/AA will be able to appeal more to the customer with it's lower op costs that can be passed onto them. CO only operate 4 daily (3 757s and 1 777 IIRC) from EWR and UA don't touch the market at all.

Smaller planes are better and lower CASM (brought from larger Aircraft) is better. The frequency/size is deteremined by the interplay between them. There is no ruling part of the equation.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: UALWN
Posted 2010-06-10 08:58:37 and read 14531 times.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 243):
This is a thread about American carriers. It would probably be more apt to compare their schedules against the others.

It was just an academical example. BA flies mostly 744s on the route, so consolidation into 388s isn't so obvious anyway.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-10 09:05:50 and read 14502 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 247):
It was just an academical example. BA flies mostly 744s on the route, so consolidation into 388s isn't so obvious anyway.

For LHR - NYC, the comparison is probably more valid if you use DL as your jump-off point. AA and BA will be JV partners, so there will probably be all sorts of interesting capacity rationalization between them. The competitors on this market will be AA/BA vs. DL vs. VS vs. CO.

And it's probably the best example. It has the both the most competition and the most capacity by far of any US-EU market. It's a good test case to discuss the A380 because it has potentially the strongest arguments bith for and against it.

NRT would be the other possibility. Lots of capacity, lots of competition.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-10 09:15:30 and read 14487 times.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 245):
That's pretty simplistic don't you think?? Even if AA and BA were to consolidate all of their flights into 6 A380 flights don't you think that DL, UA, or CO would step in and increase their frequency just to appeal more to the customer.

Seriously, if BA/AA sent an A380 every hour from 12:00 to 17:00 (times outside are not so attractive for connecting pax), what higher frequency do they need? Will somebody take the UA 13:30 flight because it fits better into the schedule than BA's flights at 13:00 or 14:00?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: mikey72
Posted 2010-06-10 09:20:16 and read 14479 times.

Well I just think that when the 744's are knackered, which isn't that far away, companies like DL, UA/CO (what do you call them these days) could do with a few A380's at least on trans-oceanic routes from the coasts. AA not so much because they're in bed with BA and are dominant across the Atlantic to the UK.

God only knows how EK are going to alter the dynamics with 90+ A380's. I've noticed that EK's passenger ratings are dropping the bigger they get but that's another story.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-10 09:37:56 and read 14468 times.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 245):
I don't recall who posted it and I don't have time to find it but don't you all think that the US air carriers have already looked up the pro's and con's to utilizing VLA's??

Yes, that's why they operate VLA's instead of DC10s, MD11's, L1011, 767s, 777s, A330s and A340s on many long haul routes. Now these will come up for replacement at some point. Some think a revolution will take place & they'll reduce capasity in booming markets.

HKG

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Thorben
Posted 2010-06-10 09:45:44 and read 14458 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 251):
Yes, that's why they operate VLA's instead of DC10s, MD11's, L1011, 767s, 777s, A330s and A340s on many long haul routes. Now these will come up for replacement at some point. Some think a revolution will take place & they'll reduce capasity in booming markets.

Maybe UA will serve HKG with A359s from five different US cities, then. LAX, ORD, IAD, DEN, and EWR (the part of former CO). Star Alliance partner SQ might serve SFO (from HKG) with an A380. That should provide enough capacity.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-10 10:01:47 and read 14433 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 251):
Yes, that's why they operate VLA's instead of DC10s, MD11's, L1011, 767s, 777s, A330s and A340s on many long haul routes. Now these will come up for replacement at some point. Some think a revolution will take place & they'll reduce capasity in booming markets

They operate 747s because they purchased them back when they were the only plane that could perform those missions, not because they needed additional capacity.If there had been a long ranger twin competing against it the 744 would never have racked up all those sales.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: norcal
Posted 2010-06-10 10:19:22 and read 14398 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 241):
Then there would be no point. But this is what we are discussing here. Just writing that "the US market cannot fill a 380 profitably" doesn't make it automatically true.

And what do you know or what evidence do you have that the fleet planners and yield managers at AA, UA, DL, CO, and US don't? Perhaps, maybe they've down things like cost/benefit analysis of markets and determined that they can't profitably operate routes with A380s.

If you look at your history you'll see that most US international carriers caught the VLA bug in the 60s when the 747 first came out. It was a disaster and all but two carriers dropped the 747 from their fleets and switched to smaller aircraft when they became available. Yes the market was smaller but this was way before open skies when the market was much more controlled and there were fewer city pairs.

Let's assume DL orders the A380, what routes will they operate them on? Let's say they decide to operate them to Asia. In order to fill them consistently they would need to funnel more passengers through a couple of hubs instead of several. A Delta FF/business traveler on either of the coasts might then be forced to transfer through DTW or MSP to catch an A380 flight to Asia. That adds a leg to their trip and is thus wasted time for them and as they say in business, time = money. This situation would really only benefit the business traveler or FF in the Midwest.

Let's also assume United and Continental merge and decide to use the A350-1000 to replace the 747s as planned and increase the use of 787s from multiple domestic hubs to Asia. So now a business traveler on the east or west coast choosing a United flight can fly from SFO, LAX, ORD, EWR and possibly IAD to Asia (maybe even a IAH flight) on a A350 or 787. That offers more choices and is particularly beneficial to the high yield business traveler.

UA can not only offer more choices to their passengers but is also better insulated for economic downturns when traffic falls off.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-06-10 10:51:55 and read 14353 times.

Quoting Delimit (Reply 253):
They operate 747s because they purchased them back when they were the only plane that could perform those missions, not because they needed additional capacity.If there had been a long ranger twin competing against it the 744 would never have racked up all those sales.

Maybe I should have used a different picture.


FRA


AMS

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: FX1816
Posted 2010-06-10 10:52:46 and read 14344 times.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 249):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 245):
That's pretty simplistic don't you think?? Even if AA and BA were to consolidate all of their flights into 6 A380 flights don't you think that DL, UA, or CO would step in and increase their frequency just to appeal more to the customer.

Seriously, if BA/AA sent an A380 every hour from 12:00 to 17:00 (times outside are not so attractive for connecting pax), what higher frequency do they need? Will somebody take the UA 13:30 flight because it fits better into the schedule than BA's flights at 13:00 or 14:00?

Don't be naive, if AA/BA cut down on frequency there would DEFINITELY be someone who'd just jump in there with more flights. Besides I meant it as a question to you about airlines jumping in to add flights if someone else were to drop them. I don't care either way because this whole thing has become silly anyways.

Quoting keesje (Reply 251):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 245):
I don't recall who posted it and I don't have time to find it but don't you all think that the US air carriers have already looked up the pro's and con's to utilizing VLA's??

Yes, that's why they operate VLA's instead of DC10s, MD11's, L1011, 767s, 777s, A330s and A340s on many long haul routes. Now these will come up for replacement at some point. Some think a revolution will take place & they'll reduce capasity in booming markets.

Yes and take notice that ANA and JAL seem to be trimming back their 744 fleets and utilizing 773's instead, I'd say that goes against what many of the pro, you NEED to fly A380's group, has been talking about on this thread.

FX1816

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Delimit
Posted 2010-06-10 11:02:11 and read 14321 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 255):
Maybe I should have used a different picture.

Funny, but you might have actually had a point with UA. NW/DL, on the other hand, sent 747s to Europe to up utilization of planes that were operating to Asia. Also, that DL shot in AMS is a tad out of date, as it is now going to Tel Aviv instead.
Also, when were those planes purchased?

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2010-06-10 11:17:53 and read 14287 times.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 242):
Halving frequencies to add the A380 doesn't make sense on many routes. A 25% reduction to add the A380 makes more sense, like what SQ have done.

It does indeed. however, a carrier operating 6 daily 777 flights (say) between LHR and JFK, and upgauging the most popular one (or even two) to an A380 isn't implausible...

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 246):
Smaller planes are better and lower CASM (brought from larger Aircraft) is better. The frequency/size is deteremined by the interplay between them. There is no ruling part of the equation.

  

The "black-and-white" arguments on either side are fascinating to read. Reality never seems to work in absolutes either way in my life. For me, "US airlines will NEVER operate A380's" is no more robust an argument than "US airlines will INEVITABLY operate A380's"

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 256):
Yes and take notice that ANA and JAL seem to be trimming back their 744 fleets and utilizing 773's instead, I'd say that goes against what many of the pro, you NEED to fly A380's group, has been talking about on this thread

It doesn't really, because the 777-300ER offers more payload capability (by weight) than the 747-400 at most ranges, especially beyond around 6000 Nm when the difference becomes dramatic, for about 20% lower operating cost.

Rgds

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2010-06-10 11:27:17 and read 14266 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 232):
That is the problem that US carriers face, population density is not as high as in Europe, the number of airports with international service is greater which makes it difficult for airlines to channel traffic into major hubs to utilize larger a/c.
Quoting norcal (Reply 233):
Airline labor has given up a ton of pay and worked increased hours since deregulation. In fact it's been our sacrifices that have allowed you to fly cheaper.

No, what has given us cheaper fares is that other companies are able to provide similar services at lower costs.

Your management reacted by squeezing concessions out of labor, and of course by making no similar concessions themselves.

You conspired by hanging on to work rules that let your competitors provide similar services at lower costs.

Quoting norcal (Reply 233):
Those concessions were intended to shore up our airlines profitability but because of management's desire to chase market share and the simple fact that there is too much competition forced ticket prices lower. The last three decades of concessions has done nothing to shore up airline profitability. That leaves on conclusion, there are too many competitors in the market, some need to exit.

No, the fact that some companies are able to provide services at a low price and thrive while others struggle says that some companies are just more efficient than others.

The fact that more have not exited says more about the willingness of investors to keep throwing good money after bad rather than anything else.

Quoting norcal (Reply 233):
Do we really need UA, CO, DL, US, AA, AS, F9, WN, NK, B6, Virgin America, Allegiant, and FL (plus a whole bunch of smaller carriers) competing with each other all over the nation and internationally? I think 3 legacies, 3-4 low cost carriers, plus Alaska would provide plenty of competition both domestically and internationally.

There's no mechanism that will protect inefficient airlines from more efficient competitors, and no mechanism that will prevent investors from funding what they think will be more efficient competitors.

Quoting norcal (Reply 233):

"Gouging" would exist if airlines were actually making money, instead of losing billions of dollars. Passengers refuse to pay the true cost of the ticket up front so we have to try and recover the costs somehow.

Absurd. Passengers are not under any obligation to pay the "true cost" of the legacy's business practices just like they are under no obligation to pay the "true cost" of GM's.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2010-06-10 11:45:55 and read 14243 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 223):
The 380 has the lowest CASM of any airplane out there. How would operating 380s "worsen the cost issues" of the U.S. legacies?

CASM is a meaningless number without context. Worse the A380 doesn't have the lowest CASM. ANA operates a 777 with 516 seats in 2 class configuration. The CASM for that configuration is going to be lower than any A380 operating today. Its also still useless as a comparison given that the RASM is ALSO lower for the ANA 777. Mind these numbers are just potentials for both RASM and CASM and don't reflect actual operating conditions unless you can fill every seat every flight. A A320 has a much higher CASM, but if only 150 people want to fly that day, which do you think is approprate to use?

Even worse CASM doesn't tell you the minimum you need to sell a seat at to make a profit. Selling seats below CASM is going to be required to fill a plane. If you don't fill the plane then the real CASM for that trip is higher. So there is another number that tells you what the minimum price that seat is worth filling at. It only involves the varible costs that change with the filling of the seat.

In short, CASM without lots of other numbers and figures to provide context is meaningless. Using it to prove one plane is better than another is ALLWAYS meaningless.

If you want a better number try Trip Cost. Its still much more useful with context, but it atleast carries some of its own. It even shows why the A380 has done well with a trip cost roughly equal to a 744 but allowing for extra revenue over a 744.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2010-06-10 13:15:51 and read 14144 times.

Due to the length of this thread, please continue discussion here:
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? #2 (by scbriml Jun 10 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Any posts added to this thread after it has been locked will be deleted for housekeeping reasons.

Topic: RE: Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?
Username: norcal
Posted 2010-06-10 13:28:15 and read 14076 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 259):
You conspired by hanging on to work rules that let your competitors provide similar services at lower costs.

Many legacy work groups have adopted more favorable rules and become much more efficient. The only one that is really "hanging on" is AA

Quoting Revelation (Reply 259):

No, what has given us cheaper fares is that other companies are able to provide similar services at lower costs.

The gap between legacy and LCC labor cost has significantly dropped in recent years. Besides legacies chase a different market type than the LCC.

Kia can provide a car much cheaper than Lexus, BMW, or Audi but yet a market still exists for luxury cars. Legacy carriers chase after high yielding first and business class passengers as the cornerstone of their business strategy, unlike WN and B6. Currently AA, UA, CO, DL, US chasing after this segment of the market and competing with WN, B6, FL etc. for the low yield people in back is unsustainable. 3 legacies competing in their market segment and 3-4 LCCs competing in their segment is plenty. That also allows a little overlap domestically.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 259):
Absurd. Passengers are not under any obligation to pay the "true cost" of the legacy's business practices just like they are under no obligation to pay the "true cost" of GM's.

I'm not talking about just legacy carriers but the entire industry. I'm sick of passengers whining about so called high fares when in fact they have plummeted since deregulation and continue to plummet despite rising fuel costs. Airline labor could work for free and airlines would still lose money because the number of carriers and level of competition would continue to drive down ticket prices and keep them at unsustainable levels. Chapter 11 and practically free capital have allowed uncompetitive airlines to remain in the market and unsustainable upstarts to keep popping up (SkyBus anyone?)

Airlines need to stop chasing market share and in order for that to happen there needs to be fewer competitors. The status quo isn't working in the US industry.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/