Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60 Posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10540 times:
Given that he ( Randy Baseler ) is quite high up on the Boeing chain unlike most of the armchair CEO's here (no, it doesn't make him an aviation guru, and he is obviously going to walk the party line for Boeing, but nonetheless), its interesting to note his views of the A380, he does bring up some good comments...
good, thoughtful, meaningful posts and discussions welcome...
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8410 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10292 times:
Perfect example of how to twist data to fit your agenda:
"Consider that Airbus says London's Heathrow will use the most A380s during the next two decades. Yet, the 747's share of departures at Heathrow hasn't changed during the past twenty years. Airbus lists Tokyo's two airports and Hong Kong's as major A380 hubs. But at those three airports, the 747 as a percentage of departures is about half of what it was in the 1990s. If large airplanes solve congestion, the 747 departures would have been going up."
The 747 share may not be hugely large but what if you were to combine the 747, A346 and 773's. I bet you the share would increase significantly.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10243 times:
Airbus lists Tokyo's two airports and Hong Kong's as major A380 hubs. But at those three airports, the 747 as a percentage of departures is about half of what it was in the 1990s.
Has Baseler ever heard of the opening of Chek Lap Kok? Only an amateur would compare Kai Tak's traffic to Chek Lap Kok's...of course the percentage of B747s goes down when MORE frequencies are possible at a totally new and large, double runway airport.
And Narita has just got a second runway, but it's still limited. And as far as Heathrow is concerned: it depends on the slots of certain airlines which make an A380 necessary. What does the percentage of B747s in total mean when airlines such as Qantas, Emirates, Virgin or others cannot offer more frequencies? The largest thing they have is the B747-400 - so what, Mr Baseler? Also, he ignores the fact that some airlines do not WANT to go for the B747 - just because the A380 is available soon. Examples are Emirates or Qatar Airways.
Sorry, hat guy acts like a bloody amateur.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10007 times:
There is one reason why HKG will get a fairly good amount of A380 service: the huge number of Hong Kong expartriates (e.g., me for example ) that live on the US West Coast, and the pretty large demand for flights from the US West Coast back to Hong Kong. That's why SQ (Singapore Airlines) will likely assign the A380 to the SQ 001/002 route as soon as they get enough planes, and it's possible that CX (Cathay Pacific) may do a long-term lease through ILFC or GECAS for about 5-7 A380's to fly between HKG and SFO/LAX by 2010-2011 time frame at latest.
You forget to mention that most of the profitable airlines that have ordered the A380 either enjoy a monopoly or are protected from competition either directly or indirectly by their host governments. I bet the Quantas wouldn't be so gung-ho on the 380 if they had more real competition on the SYD-LAX service.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1889 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9913 times:
Kind of funny how the diary starts right before A380 rollout. Boeing does their best to belittle this huge achievement of aviation industry... They went from "nobody will buy it" to "15 year old philosophy"... I wonder what they're going to come up with after there's three hundred of them or so flying around...
As far as "hub and spoke=dead, point-to-poin=the way of the future", Mr. Baseler conveniently fails to notice how one of their biggest customers in the US keeps successfully following - with a few exceptions - hub-and-spoke system, while being relatively constantly profitable. Anybody wanna guess which airline I'm talking about?? *hint*hint*blue tail, golden globe*hint*
I think for now point-to-point system has its limitations. Small, regional airports for a while will have to rely on their hub connections. What we might see would be a fragmentation of the hub and spoke system - i.e. more smaller, less congested hubs popping up here and there.
KL662 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9772 times:
BlueSky: I'd argue that the airline with the blue tail and golden globe in fact bolsters Mr. Baseler's case. Sure, they're spoke-to-spoke domestically, but look at what they're doing internationally to Europe (and, to some extent, Mexico).
Newark may be a hub, but they're not exclusively flying a bunch of large-capacity planes transatlantic hub-to-hub. They've got something like 6 destinations in England/Scotland alone and are serving smaller markets with 757's. Each additional 757 they put across the pond to a DUB or HAM puts a little dent in traffic to LHR and FRA...
Now, I'm not saying that I agree with Mr. Baseler, but I do think he's got some valid points. There are some obvious routes where the A380 will make a lot of sense. However, my opinion is that Airbus is a little optimistic in their estimation of the size of the market.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9475 times:
Has this guy ever left the USA? Does he know that there are loads of flights which use the 747, which are not flying between hubs. On flights from Heathrow to Tokyo, Singapore, Jo'burg, Lagos, New York, Rio, Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney, Los Angeles etc etc, the flights aren't full of fatties connecting from Madison or Tulsa. This is point to point, and those destinations all need the 747 or bigger. Some Yanks seem to think airline passengers just fly round and round from hub to hub, never getting off. Believe me, in Europe and the rest of the world, we like point to point too. But we need 747s or A380s, cos there's a lot of us. Anyone who thinks the A380 is going to be used to and from hubs is deluded. Ask passengers getting off a 747 flight at Heathrow (or Paris, HK, Jo'Burg, you name it) if their journey involves more than one sector. Of course some will say yes, but the vast majority will say NO. There's always a good fare on Luftwaffe via Frankfurt (or maybe BA via LHR if you're German) but most people want to fly direct, point to point - and they do: on 747s.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Qantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5859 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9378 times:
well cedarjet where do you see the A380 going? at the moment SQ has it's first A380 down to do the Kangaroo route and not the West Coast of the US as some have stated. most of the worlds airports won't even be able to handle an aircraft this size, it's simply quite unerenomical for alot of existing infrastructure. if that's all the point to point's you have to offer and even then we don't know if all those will eventuate then i don't know that the A380 will do that well. and get this cedarjet, alot of europeans don't want to have to fly from say ATH to LHR to get on an A380 to get to JFK when they can get on an A340 and be there alot quicker!
it'll serve it's purpose on runs like SIN-LHR and SYD-LAX where large numbers of people need to be moved, but it'' be working along side the trusty 747 aswell because carriers like Qantas aren't going to just have 1xA380 a day from Syd-Lax, it'll be a mix of the A380 and the 747.
i spend alot of time at NRT, in recent times the decreasing amount of 747's is very noticeable, long are the days of NW sending every 747 in the fleet to NRT, now we see the new A330 and a few 747's and lots of 757's and the old DC10's, UA sends so many 777's to NRT that you could almost photograph the fleet there, SQ now send's the 777 and the 747.
JAL sends the 747 to US and Europe and now the 777's are on the Europe runs EX Tokyo and Kansai. ANA sends a few 744's to the US and alot more 777's of recent times. JAL will start sending 773ER will operate to Paris in the near future, and this is one of JAL's most lucrative sectors.
Sydney is full of Qantas 747's, a few from SQ, JL,TG, MH and KE, the rest of the international market is dominated by the A340, A330 and the 777. of the airlines that have ordered the A380 how many will definately fly it to a place like Sydney? Qantas will of course, SQ, EK and maybe MH and TG, that's not really moving alot more people considering that SQ will have it configured for only about 460 and 20 crew, it's about 90 seats more than the 744's they send down now. i don't see KE operating an A380 to SYD then leaving it on the ground for 12 hours before it's evening departure, this is what they currently do with the 744.
i believe if the A380 is to be a real success they need to get the Japanese carriers onboard, JL and NH flying around Japan with the A380 configured for 700 people would mean the A380 has truly arrived, the Japanese are among the most widely travelled in the world, yet JL and NH see no need for an aircraft of this size, if one of the biggest markets in the world is leaning towards the 773ER then what does that really say to Airbus if they can't lure this most lucrative of customers.
anyways, for me it's not a matter of A vs B, just a matter of smart business, i don't care what i fly on as long as it gets me ther, but if the A380 isn't going to get me to where i want to go ASAP then i will simply choose the otion that will, and now thats the A345 or the 773ER.
that's just my humble opinion and i'm so wacked out on morphine at the moment that i don't know if i've made sense, but i hope i have.
[Edited 2005-01-20 13:09:20]
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
Rj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9186 times:
and get this cedarjet, alot of europeans don't want to have to fly from say ATH to LHR to get on an A380 to get to JFK when they can get on an A340 and be there alot quicker!
That's quite a short key route, the A380 was never going to thrive on a short Trans-Atlantic flights. Try flying JFK to Pusan Gangzou Sydney Hiroshima, or BOS, IAD, MIA to HKG, PVG, KUL, SIN You're never going to get a P2P on all of those routes 7e7 or not, there just isn't the demand. You have to rely on a hub and spoke system eventually.
the Japanese are among the most widely travelled in the world, yet JL and NH see no need for an aircraft of this size
If Boeing don't produce the 744adv i'd happily bet the farm on seeing a JL and NH A380.
SQ will have it configured for only about 460 and 20 crew
ODAFZ From Afghanistan, joined Jul 2004, 357 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9098 times:
Concerning NH and JL not operating /ordering the A380. Shall I remind you that JAL is using the 747SR with a very high pax configuration and consequently, they might not need the A380 in the near future.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8923 times:
No, I didn't forget at all. I don't see how Singapore Airlines enjoys a monopoly or is protected by its goverment, since just about every airline that flies to Asia flies to Singapore.
The point of my post is that it doesn't might what might be, or what people think might be.
What matters is what is. Everything else is an unproven theory.
Boeing and the US airlines can say until they're blue in the face that people want point to point flying and not hubs, but in terms of profit that has yet to be proven.
Of course, there will be more point to point flying. That does not mean that hubs are dead. Continental, for example, is doing a lot of international (UK/Euro) point to point flying - from it's hub at EWR.
Are either UAL or AA going to dismantle ORD?
Or, to remove it from international flying, Southwest is usually claimed as a point to point airline.
So why has Southwest just shelled out a bunch of money to expand their "hub" at MDW?
And, just a friendly heads up, the airline is called Qantas, not Quantas.
VSIVARIES From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 108 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8871 times:
Face it, Airbus have been busy developing new product while Boing have been pretty much sitting on their hands.
Airbus have stolen the limelight and are already 50% of the way back to break even point for their efforts.
If you were in the man's position what are you supposed to say?
Maybe, "Gee thoughs damn Europeans have really got us on the run now, I'll be honest, apart from the 7E7 I don't have a darned clue where we're going next!".
I'm not trying to fuel an AvB fire but this is just common sense.
For every action there is always an unequal but mostly similar reaction.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8861 times:
CO is not flying point ot poitn from EWR. EWR is their HUB to Europe, all routes like EWR-HAM, EWR-OSL are spoke routes.
Boeing claims that people want point-to-point, and the same people who follow Boeing's argumentation usually claim that people want frequency over size.
But if you have the choice between HAM-NRT between 3 weekly 767 and 3 daily A380 HAM-FRA-NRT. What do you think people would prefer?