Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"A380 Is Flying Into The Headwind Of Reality"  
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Posted (10 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 10874 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...  Smile


"Up the Irons!"
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 10781 times:

What else do you expect him to say? Certainly he would never say a postive word about the A380. His job is to act in favour for his company, that's what he gets his money for.

No need at all to start another A vs B discussion. The thread is just as senseless as posting another "hot quotation" from Forgeard...  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 10771 times:

For once I agree with Udo.

User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8943 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 10626 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.

User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 10573 times:

Certainly he would never say a postive word about the A380

Really? Ever been to a briefing where he's spoken? Doesn't sound like it. I've heard him speak very fairly about the aircraft.

It would be ironic if you're speaking without knowing the facts - given that you're practically accusing him of doing the same.

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 10577 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.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8126 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 10341 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 Big grin ) 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.  Smile

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 26289 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 10293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

But this is just silly. The airlines that have ordered the A380 are, for the most part, the most profitable airlines in the world.

The US majors, who have not ordered the A380, are losing money hand over fist.

The proftiable airlines who have ordered the A380 believe there is still a place for hub flying.

The US majors who are following the Boeing "hubs are dead" line are losing money hand over fist.

So what am I to believe - that the unprofitable US majors have got it right and the profitable airlines have got it wrong?



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 10262 times:

I started this yesterday: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1913581/

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.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 10263 times:

The problem is that some of them have taken the trend towards dehubbing to an extreme by piling on high-CASM RJs.

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1963 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 10247 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*  Smile

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.

Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineAirportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3814 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 10240 times:


You have some common sense points which I agree with. Think about it for a second.

I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineKL662 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 10106 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.

(p.s. First post!)

User currently offlineKnoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 260 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 9978 times:

Same thing here, I do agree on some points, but...

it also represents a very large misjudgment about how most passengers want to travel and how most airlines operate.

That's saying the airlines that bought it got it wrong....don't care if they are government airlines.

No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months ago) and read 9924 times:

Although I agree that the % of VLA departures will go down, it is a % of an ever increasing market, and for this reason the 380 has a reasonable chance of success.

However I have posted many times before that Airbus should have spent their money on a 320 replacement and a 300 replacemnt. This wold have cost no more, and knocked Boeing off its blocks.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8326 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9809 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
User currently offlineQantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5878 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9712 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.
User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9520 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

Try 550.

Enjoy the morphine.

User currently offlineODAFZ From Afghanistan, joined Jul 2004, 357 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9432 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.

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 26289 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


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.

aeternum nauta
User currently offlineVSIVARIES From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 108 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9205 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.
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9195 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?

User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 858 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9014 times:

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?

Isn't it the other way around? Wouldn't the logic (a la Boeing) be a choice between 3 weekly A380 flights and 3 daily 767 flights?

That's why we're here.
User currently offlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8788 times:

LY4XELD: No it doesn't, in one case it's from HAM, in the other case it's from FRA.

User currently offlineBaldguy From Canada, joined May 2001, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8685 times:

I wonder what effect the novelty factor of the 380 will have? Will people choose the 380 just because it's the biggest and has loads of new features?

25 Daedaeg : Qantas, you've made a very interesting argument. I believe the A380 will be a marginal success at best. what do you believe its future sales potential
26 OO-VEG : You're right LY4XELD. The logic of Boeing is more point-to-point flights and more connections. Well the point-to-point thing is what JoFMO tries to un
27 Racko : Ah I see, Airbus got it totally wrong and nobody needs really big aircraft anymore. So that's why Boeing talks about spending billions on the 747Adv?
28 Airzim : JL and NH will never buy the A380. They have both stated that they do not want to buy and aircraft that cannot be used for both domestic and internati
29 BlackKnight : IMHO I believe it will be a mix of both, but the key will be on the flexibility to perform both. Also geographical considerations must be made to und
30 Mariner : "...a few large planes on major routes with many flexible planes providing support." Which is almost certainly what it will be. Which is pretty much w
31 Milan320 : I'm curious here then, if Boeing's philosophy is that point-to-point is the way of the future and hub-and-spoke will be dead, then how come they keep
32 Post contains images TheBigOne : "A380 is flying into the headwind of reality" I guess he forgot to mention the tailwind that is speeding the 747 into extinction!
33 FCKC : The ceasefire is already finished.Another childish A vs B war is opening.......... We saw INTELLIGENT and HONNEST comments just after the A380 show ab
34 Ken777 : The 380 faces a lot of challenges, including Airbus ensuring it exceeds their sales promises. Once that is done there are other issues: 1. Airlines ha
35 Sas330got : As stated in this discussion. The A380 is a hub to hub aircraft. The 7E7 is a point to point aircraft (even though this aircraft can fly around the wo
36 Lehpron : Argument in favor of Airbus, against Boeing: There will be more people flying that ever before and frequency will just pile the airports up with traff
37 BlackKnight : In countries where there are only a few International Airports and limited slots yes the A380 will be a welcome solution. The issue is that the US, Ch
38 Post contains images Agill : Sas330got: GOT woohoo Seriously I don't understand why immigration wouldn't work with 7E7 flights to the US at GOT? I mean it is not more passengers t
39 Xkorpyoh : As traffic grows worldwide, the options are: 1) Offer new nonstop flights from secondary cities that have enough traffic to warrant the service to oth
40 Mariner : If the debate is about return on investment, it is more complex than you state. The A380 completes the Airbus family in the same way that the 747 comp
41 Udo : A 380 with 100 pax is not going to be very successful in the low season (or mid week) and there needs to be a profitable use for it. Today's B747-400
42 Chiawei : US airline is losing money because of heavy competition brought on by LCC carrier that is eating away the domestic market. LCC like southwest really d
43 M27 : Its my understanding that until the A380 is in service, the 747-400 and 400ER has the lowest seat mile costs. If larger is the way to go (the A380), D
44 Post contains links Mariner : Chiawei: If Southwest does not have hubs, then what do you call their operation at LAX? And why have they just paid $100 million for more gates at MDW
45 Udo : 1. A 747-400 operating with 100 pax is about 30% full, while an A380 with 100 pax is less than 20% full. So per passenger carried, A380 will not be as
46 Chiawei : To Mariner: When did Southwest have a true hub system. LAX is not a hub. If LAX is Southwest Hub, than places such as Las Vegas or phoenix would be co
47 PlaneSmart : Baseler's comments are.........just that. Entirely predictable from a competitor. If you look at the B growth projections by region 2003 to 2023, you
48 N79969 : Unlike the pugnacious John Leahy, Baesler makes his point in measured words. Both men are fundamentally salesmen whose job is to advocate their respec
49 Mariner : Chiawei: Southwest at LAX - or at MDW - is a hub situation. Or PHX. Or PHL. Or BNA. A true hub situation does not rely on "huge aircraft" flying "betw
50 Post contains images JetMechMD80 : What's truly bizarre is that A380's, B-747's, and Southwest Airlines are being discussed in the same thread. And, even though I am one of those "if it
51 A999 : When PanAm placed an order for 25 747`s it was a giant step forward in terms of capacity. All other major airlines became stuck by giantomania and soo
52 Cospn : HKG will have lots of Open Slots when Taiwan/ China Flight are allowed its Just a Matter of time No US Taxpayer money should be spent on A380 Airport
53 DfwRevolution : Many of their flights feed into their central connecting points - aka "hubs". The fact that they have several hubs instead of a couple of big ones doe
54 Mariner : DfwRevolution: Then I think you need to define what you think a hub is. WN may not run "banks" but then several airlines with acknowledged hubs do not
55 Bill142 : I bet the Quantas wouldn't be so gung-ho on the 380 if they had more real competition on the SYD-LAX service yes because they could still fill it up
56 Post contains links Aither : And after 56 posts, did someone actually read what Airbus really think about the market ? (and not only what journalists report) : http://www.airbus.c
57 Aither : Ah ! no answer ? i see When things become a bit serious and not "Fox News said...", everybody's leaving !
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AV..a Step Closer Into The Hands Of "the Sheik"? posted Sun Oct 10 2004 22:47:49 by Wimpycol
"The Aeroplane Is Useless For The Purpose Of War!" posted Sat Sep 15 2001 21:10:08 by LMML 14/32
What Is This By The Window Of This TU-154? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 06:35:10 by Csavel
A380 Evacuation - What Are The Odds Of Success? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 09:44:58 by Ants
Is Flying Still The Safest Way To Travel? posted Fri Aug 19 2005 17:40:42 by Flydubai
A380 Being 'rushed' Into The Air? posted Fri Oct 22 2004 02:56:28 by ChrisNH
Branson Is Giving Away The Presidency Of Virgin posted Mon Oct 18 2004 05:00:32 by Jfkaua
International Airlines Not Flying Into The USA? posted Wed Jun 9 2004 22:11:05 by Anthsaun
Vietnam Airlines Flying Into The United States posted Wed Feb 11 2004 01:22:57 by Panam64
British Midland Flying Into The US posted Wed Jan 21 2004 01:58:39 by Panam64