Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airlines And The A380  
User currently offlineMEACEDAR From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 753 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13783 times:

My buddy and me were talking about the A380, and after he left my house, I thought of a good question.

Why are there no U.S. airline even looking at the A380?

I would love to see UA or US colors on a A380.

What are the chances of this happening?

109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13732 times:

Quoting MEACEDAR (Thread starter):
What are the chances of this happening?

Slim to none, and I'll tell you why...

Most if not all US airlines have decided to focus on frequency instead of capacity, preferring to fly 2 777s instead of one 747/A380. The only US airlines to currently operate the 747 are NW and UA, and they comprise only a relatively small part of their long-haul fleets with only 15 with NW and 30 at UA IIRC. I would expect NW and UA to not have a 1:1 replacement for their 747s, preferring to fly the 787 and A330s, but I could foresee a very limited small order of the 747-8I at both airlines.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3784 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13630 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting MEACEDAR (Thread starter):
I would love to see UA or US colors on a A380.

United, maybe. And I say maybe because I'm not sure they will buy it to replace their remaining 744's, as Da man said the US airlines are rather looking at increasing frequency on routes instead of flying large capacity aircraft. That's why no US airline flies any 773.

US Airways: never gonna happen. I am certain that US Airways will never buy A380's, they were never interested in aircraft larger than the 767 or A330. They don't fly 747's at all, they never did (yes HP did but not for long). They might buy the A350XWB but not the A380.

The US airlines are not even interested in the 748, NW and UA might show interest but it doesn't look like so.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineHelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13419 times:

The only one I can think of would be UA for the Asian routes due to the slot restrictions at NRT.

Most of the US carriers don't fly the big metal now, I think only UA and NW fly the 744, the rest don't go bigger than 777.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 2):
US Airways - They might buy the A350XWB but not the A380.

they have just ordered a shedload of A350s. Having said that A380s will be flying with a US code due to US's tieup with SQ.


User currently offlineNcelhr From Vatican City, joined Jul 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13407 times:

Quoting MEACEDAR (Thread starter):
Why are there no U.S. airline even looking at the A380?

1. It's an expensive aircraft, and most cannot afford it for the time being
2. Fewer landing slot restrictions at US airports
3. The US Intercontinental market is shifting in the other direction at the moment
4. Oil not expensive enough yet


User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13341 times:

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 6):
1. It's an expensive aircraft, and most cannot afford it for the time being
2. Fewer landing slot restrictions at US airports
3. The US Intercontinental market is shifting in the other direction at the moment
4. Oil not expensive enough yet

5. Very few routes require ~600 flights/leg
6. Competition with smaller aircraft and more frequency would kill whomever put a 380 on a route..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5415 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13269 times:

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 7):
What's the point of flying so many flights when they end up being delayed 2 hours all the time? I would prefer to fly an aircraft that is scheduled for 8PM and leaves at 8PM, rather than seeing he 6PM flight leaving at 8 and the 8PM leaving at 9:30...

Wow, you are just copying my old quotes  Wink

Yes, most of the high-frequency flights, that the airlines say 'we' are all asking for, actually end up being less frequent and more delayed, than scheduling a larger aircraft less-frequently. This isn't my opinion, as I've posted random actual data many times, and it's the norm, rather than the exception at places like DCA and LGA.



Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13229 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 8):
6. Competition with smaller aircraft and more frequency would kill whomever put a 380 on a route..

That depends on the lenght of the flight and the window of opportunity for a flight. In many situations frequency offers a negligable advantage.

[Edited 2007-06-22 14:05:04]

User currently offlinePaulcaz From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13217 times:

knew this would set the cat among the pigeons, but as someone said passengers don't want more aircraft the business man wants to fly in the morning fly out in the evening!


Paul Newman Ascot UK
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1305 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13217 times:

Chances are slim. But maybe UA or NW will purchase in a couple of years. Don't expect anything before the A380 is at leat one year in service.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 4):
Why send a big ole monster that will only allow one frequency on a route when you can offer two smaller aircraft that will provide more frequencies and still fly at acceptable capacity? And Americans don't contribute any more to GreenHouse gases than the EU does

I don't like the we he stated it; it not a US - EU war. But your statement in itself proves his statement true. Let's say two 772's consume more fuel per pax and pollute more per pax than one A380.

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 6):
1. It's an expensive aircraft, and most cannot afford it for the time being

I doubt 1 A380 is more expensive than 2 x 772. Especially if you take maintenance into account.

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 6):
2. Fewer landing slot restrictions at US airports

See comment CuriousFlyer below.

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 7):
The Port Authority of NY and NJ is thinking of restricting access to its airports for smaller airplanes



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 8):
Competition with smaller aircraft and more frequency would kill whomever put a 380 on a route..

Not if they both get one slot and the demand is for more than 400 pax.......



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13183 times:

Quoting Paulcaz (Reply 12):
knew this would set the cat among the pigeons, but as someone said passengers don't want more aircraft the business man wants to fly in the morning fly out in the evening!

Exactly.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13183 times:

Slot restriction is no issue in the US, compared to Europe or Japan.

If US airlines cannot get more slots on their home bases, or if they would be forced to reduce the number of slots on them by anti monopoly authorities, they would go for larger aircrafts. I do not see this to happen at ORD,ATL,DFW etc .

A strong increase of traffic into China could change this, where slots are limited, but again I could expect UA to buy a handful of 748 first.

Burkhard


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30974 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13175 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MEACEDAR (Thread starter):
Why are there no U.S. airline even looking at the A380?

I feel the main reason is that it doesn't fit how US airlines operate. With the sheer size and population of the United States, it is served by a large number of domestic carriers which is relatively unique in the world of commercial aviation. As such, when it comes to international services, you do not have two or three major carriers who handle all the people, but instead eight to nine. And then you consider all the US majors with international services are also members of alliances with the largest established non-US international carriers.

So US airlines flying international routes just don't have the concerns about capacity and slot availability that some of the non-US international carriers do. AA doesn't need a 747, to say nothing of an A380, to fly to LHR from JFK because they have BA and OneWorld with six (seven?) flights a day in addition to their own multiple flights, so that is plenty of capacity and slots. UA doesn't have to have the A380 to fly to NRT because they have services from four of their five hubs, plus one additional gateway, plus SQ and NH services via the Star Alliance.

Price is not so much an issue, because the airlines can find the financing if they could make a solid business case for the A380. And trans-Pacific ops, because of their stage length, don't really lend themselves to too large a spread of frequency (you need to depart within a certain window to arrive at your destination at a certain desirable window).

Quoting MEACEDAR (Thread starter):
What are the chances of this happening?

I think it is very, very unlikely unless the current "Big Six" (UA, AA, DL, CO, NW, US) become the "Bigger Three" or UA merges with LH, BA with AA, NW merges with KL, or DL/CO merge with AF or another large SkyTeam international member.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13144 times:

Quoting Paulcaz (Reply 3):
Thats why the Americans Contribute more to green house gases they would rather send 2 planes half empty than one A380 full!

Show me an airline in the US that is flying with a 50% or lower load factor. Do you have any more whitty staements like that?


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5415 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13144 times:

This is what happens .... and it's no exception, trust me:

Last night DCA-LGA:
Sched vs actual

4:00pm 4:09pm
5:00pm 5:23pm
6:00pm Cancelled
7:00pm 10:49pm
8:00pm 11:02pm
9:00pm 10:44pm

Check most days amd you'll see similar pictures.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13138 times:

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 7):
You are misinformed

It happens.. my bad.. we are bad Americans..

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 7):
There are many congested airports in the US like JFK, EWR, LAX, SFO, ATL and ORD, where A380s would make a lot of sense.

Every airport is a MAJOR hub. But you don't see a lot of US airlines have a lot of frequencies to any one A380 worthy destination from any of those airports (save NYC-LON).

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 7):
The Port Authority of NY and NJ is thinking of restricting access to its airports for smaller airplanes, and when they will have to do it, US airlines wil have to re-think their policy of small aircrafts.

Restricting them from a bunch of RJ.. not form widebody jets.. they are not going to say no more 757, 767, 330, 340, or 777 into JFK or EWR.. they are going to say.. no more 35-50 seat aircraft into LGA from mid-tier and large-tier airports.. your point doesn't really count when talking about the A380.

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 7):
What's the point of flying so many flights when they end up being delayed 2 hours all the time?

The problem is that currently, a lot of US airlines do not have the right size aircraft for every route. It happened when a lot of airlines dropped their F100, 732, etc.. I agree that having a bunch of flights that never arrive on time seems kinda pointless, but until the airlines have the right aircraft to match the route.. it will be a problem. Now that airlines are now moving from the RJ craze into the right-size craze (DL with the CR9, US with the E90, B6 with the E90), you will see routes being served better and more efficiently.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5415 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13061 times:

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
The problem is that currently, a lot of US airlines do not have the right size aircraft for every route. It happened when a lot of airlines dropped their F100, 732, etc.. I agree that having a bunch of flights that never arrive on time seems kinda pointless, but until the airlines have the right aircraft to match the route.. it will be a problem. Now that airlines are now moving from the RJ craze into the right-size craze (DL with the CR9, US with the E90, B6 with the E90), you will see routes being served better and more efficiently.

I disagree somewhat. It's no accident that the airlines are using RJs for these routes.... that's one reason why they bought them. They are flying the same route every hour, because the 'flying public' want more frequency ... what they fail to understand is that none of us want more frequency, if it means more delays and more cancellations ... we'll take less frequency any day, and if you ask us the right questions we'll tell you that.

Problem is that it's not just RJs ... many of these shuttles are 737s. I'm not sure that CRJ9s and E90s will mean hourly flights becoming every 2hrs. The airlines are convinced we all want hourly shuttles. It's going to take a bigger change than that.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12983 times:

I think everyone agrees NW and UA are the most likely candidates.

They operate 747's from and to hub accross the Pacific for decades.

The Asian market is growing rapidly.

United & Northwest didn't buy piles of 744s for nothing even when smaller A340s, DC10's, MD11's, 777's for long haul were available.

Hubs like NRT will remain restricted, as are China landing rights.

I think NWA can cause a suprize, they have taken unexpected radical decisions before.


A380 picture I took with my phone very, very recently..

[Edited 2007-06-22 15:19:31]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6906 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12901 times:

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 4):
4. Oil not expensive enough yet

Or perhaps oil is too expensive. I'll bet that when you actually put it in service and use realistic load factors the amount of fuel per passenger will be just as high flying the A380 as anything else except on those very, very few routes where there are more passengers than seats on a regular basis. This will be especially true once 787's and A350's start becoming common, as they will compete with the A380 on fuel burn per passenger even when the A380 is full. The only place the A380 makes sense is slot-restricted routes where the load factors are consistently high, and there just aren't that many of those, and none in the domestic US market.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1305 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12892 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 17):
A380 picture I took with my phone very, very recently..

Where did you take it. MSP or DTWBig grin



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12829 times:

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 19):
Where did you take it. MSP or DTW?

Memphis after I came back from mud island..


http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00008630


User currently offlineCuriousFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12817 times:

Part of my post earlier was referring to a deleted post, and then my entire post was deleted, so I re-state the part of my post that still makes sense (and is referred to in post 15 for example):

There are many congested airports in the US like JFK, LAX, SFO, ORD, ATL, where A380s would make a lot of sense. The Port Authority of NY and NJ is thinking of restricting access to its airports for smaller airplanes, and when they will have to do it, US airlines wil have to re-think their policy of small aircrafts.

What's the point of flying so many flights when they end up being delayed 2 hours all the time? I would prefer to fly an aircraft that is scheduled for 8PM and leaves at 8PM, rather than seeing he 6PM flight leaving at 8 and the 8PM leaving at 9:30...

And to reply to that post 15, from ERJ170, I still believe my points are valid. American A380s could serve many more points than LON only, even domestic routes like JFK, EWR, ORD, MIA, LAX, SFO, and with slot restrictions, even though other widebodies will be allowed, a very large one might save the day on some routes.

[Edited 2007-06-22 15:45:12]

User currently offlineAirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12808 times:

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 4):
Oil not expensive enough yet

?????????????????

How does that make sense? We won't buy a plane until the oil gets MORE expensive, costing us even more in operating costs???


User currently offlineYOWza From Nepal, joined Jul 2005, 4887 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12768 times:

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 22):
How does that make sense? We won't buy a plane until the oil gets MORE expensive, costing us even more in operating costs???

Think about it, it DOES make sense...



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12734 times:

Certainly a possibility. With open skies now EU carriers can go from where they want in Europe to the US. This means even more European flights to the US. American carriers have recently stepped up their international activities, and if they want to be able to compete, they'll need A380s to have good prices and pax comfort.

In addition to that, UA flies 747s to LHR and FRA, why not use A380s? FRA is a strong LH hub, so is MUC, and ZRH is the LY hub. UA could fly big planes to those hubs, also to Japan, China, and Australia. NW could use them to AMS in the future, and to Japan. I expect UA and NW to order within the next five years if they remain profitable.

AA is surely a candidate, US, CO, and DL rather not. At least not in the near future, it all depends on how they'll develop.

One thing is sure, foreign carriers will fly fleets of A380s into the US, let's see how the Americans will deal with that competition.


25 Glareskin : I agree with most of your arguing but this is unlikely. It is a long time ago that I've seen the NW 747's in AMS. It's only A330's nowadays.
26 Post contains links Thorben : I think the 747 service ended in 2006, and since it where mainly 742s, I guess it was because of the retirement of the aircraft. Sometimes NW has fou
27 SEPilot : American carriers thought in the 70's that they needed to buy 747's because everybody else was. They got badly burned and are not likely to repeat th
28 Keesje : A333 have lower casm then e.g. 744's. AMS-DTW are 3 full flight in the morning. If traffic keeps growing 5% per year perhaps they could combine 2 of
29 Post contains images Keesje : Are you saying all these carriers basicly don't know what they are doing?
30 AirframeAS : 7. Given the state the industry is in at this time in the U.S., the legancies cannot afford to buy one.
31 Halls120 : it's not a question of airlines "not knowing what they are doing." It's a question of whether or not purchasing a VLA makes sense for them. While I w
32 SEPilot : I don't know; I am not familiar with most of them. They believe that the A380 will make money for them, and they may be right. In that case, they mad
33 OzarkD9S : So many US airlines got burned on the 747 30+ years ago I don't think the majority of them are ready to repeat that mistake. Granted, the legacies' ne
34 Ncelhr : I was thinking more along the lines that currently US Legacy carriers do not currently have the cashflow to sustain such purchases. That said, I am m
35 Glareskin : I really hope you guys are right. Is AMS ready for the 380? Or MSP / DTW?
36 UAL777UK : And VS! I dont see UA or NW anytime in the near future, laying their hands on the 380, at best they will go for the 747-8. When UA do lay out there p
37 PlaneHunter : And European and Asian carriers have not? Note that it's not a question of will in many cases. Very simplistic statement... Quite hard on long haul r
38 FLYGUY767 : Most if not all does not describe United Airlines and Northwest Airlines Pacific networks. There are a number of NWA and UAL routes that do require t
39 Post contains images Keesje : Nice pick. Didn't 3 A380 operators order additional ones tyhis week? UA and NW replaced their seventies 7747 with new ones in the eighties and nineti
40 FLYGUY767 : Well judging from the 747-800 model, it doesn't seem as attractive to as many airlines as the A380. Funny as Airbus has bagged so many A380 orders, t
41 Halls120 : Yes, they did. But instead of avoiding my question, why can't you at least admit the possibility that some airlines may have made a mistake in decidi
42 SEPilot : But this same time period has seen many airlines phasing out 747's in favor of smaller aircraft. The A380 has been for sale for a lot longer than the
43 FLYGUY767 : How many 747-800 orders have been placed at Paris? How many 787-300 orders have been placed at Paris? -JD
44 PlaneHunter : A deferral doesn't necessarily mean the aircraft wasn't the right choice, probably the timing is the real problem. In EY's case it's no surprise cons
45 AirTran717 : The logic escapes me at the moment... why would it be economical to wait until oil costs even more per barrel... causing fuel costs to rise... even i
46 AirTran717 : Hit the nail right on the head. And to add my answer to another... A deferral doesn't necessarily mean the airline erred and decided they wanted to d
47 Post contains images UnknownUser : You're point being....
48 SEPilot : What has that got to do with the price of potatoes? Paris was one week out of 52; nobody has been expecting any more 783 orders right now anyway. Air
49 YULWinterSkies : And almost all US airlines have multiple hubs, with spreads out the network and reinforces the need for multiple flights. If sometimes adding frequen
50 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Your thinking is backwards - high fuel prices favor smaller aircraft, not larger. Higher fuel costs = higher tickets prices = lower demand. You need
51 AirTran717 : Not being able to fill the 380, thusly lending to smaller equipment makes sense. It's I guess like a double-edged sword. The economics of it are stil
52 Fridgmus : I wonder if it would be cost effective for one of the Military Charter companies to purchase one or two A380's? If you can take a battalion (600+ sold
53 Byrdluvs747 : Finally, some logic in the midst of all this A380 fanboyism. That's just one of the reasons we will not see the A380 flown by a US airline.
54 Post contains images Keesje : During the last few yrs fuel cost & demand did rise dramatically. So perhaps this might be a little more complicated
55 Stitch : It depends on how much the rise in fuel costs both raises fares (to recover the additional costs) and diverts "discretionary income" towards meeting
56 Wdleiser : There is going to be a day when US airlines will need an A380 or 748 and will use them with great frequency.... air travel is increasing each year and
57 Flyboy14295 : Just to clarify one thing, DTW is NOT A380 ready, According to my contacts at DTW, Northwest is not interested in the A380, and therefore DTW has no r
58 Mohunk : Flame me as an idiot, but I'm not an airline guy. I just love flying (as a pax). So what exactly is a "SLOT?" Is it an arrival space in time? If an A
59 AirframeAS : Isn't it true that the A380 was not designed for U.S. domestic?? I swore I read something about that in a thread somewhere on A.net last year. No U.S.
60 Bond007 : There is plenty of demand between the top cities to fill an A380, and it would be much more economical than filling and flying the same number of pax
61 SuseJ772 : Exactly! I could careless that there are six flights from 10 am to 4 pm. It is what is pre-9 am and post 5 pm. Uhh I would really disagree with this.
62 Post contains images 6YJJK : An A380 has more surface to clean than a 748. So by ordering A380s and not washing them, Air France save even more!
63 FLYGUY767 : Bond007, (Great Name BTW) This is something that I have agreed with for years. What I question is the American obsession with frequency. In most case
64 Stitch : A lot of that frequency is driven by connecting traffic. ORD could not handle simultaneous arrivals from 100 smaller cities to then pack them all in
65 SJCRRPAX : Because of separation distances and runway limitations airports have a maximum number of planes that can land per hour. For example SFO can land 60 p
66 SJCRRPAX : Don't forget there are three airports in the Bay Area (SJC, OAK, SFO) and five airports in the LA Area (ONT, SNA, BUR, LAX, LGB) so 190 flights avera
67 Zvezda : UA have, as I count them, 7 transpacific routes that demand a VLA because additional frequencies are not readily available. It would take a subfleet o
68 Post contains images MCIGuy : What can I say that hasn't been said? "Never say 'never'", but I'm afraid I have to this time. I'm 50% sure that no US carriers will operate the 747 i
69 Keesje : No doubt this is true for shorter trips and limited (1-2 appointments) transatlantics. For longer trips I see many business travelers taking their ti
70 Post contains images AirSpare : The airports that I can see using 380 flights are LAX, MIA, whatever in NYC, what others? I think that "the Americans" will be happy to take the traf
71 Post contains images Halls120 : I'm one of them. I'd rather have the flexibility currently offered by UA's 8 nonstops between IAD and SFO (1x777, 2x763, 1x757, 3x320, 1x319). Sure,
72 Copacabana : Let's see if the A380 will represent any advantage for them first!!!!! Then I would say the A380 would be an option. A good one.
73 FLYGUY767 : That is nothing compared to the ongoing slugfest between JFK/LGA vs EWR -JD
74 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..you keep posting the same canard Keesje...traffic will not be growing uniformly at every airport pair/route... ....seems Airbus has "conveniently"
75 SJCRRPAX : Probably not a good idea in the age of hand held missles to send an entire battalion on one aircraft into a combat zone anyway.
76 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I guess that would be something which would be out of my league to discuss anyway.....
77 XT6Wagon : What alot of people forget is smaller planes pay off in flexibility. When the morning plane goes tech, its a much different deal if its a 737 compared
78 Zvezda : During the time that the 747-8 has been available for sale, Airbus have sold net 18 WhaleJets. During the time that the WhaleJet has been available f
79 Thorben : IAD, ORD, MCO (VS), IAH, DFW, DEN, SFO, LAS, MSP, probably more. It seems they want more of the international traffic, too. DL and CO are opening mor
80 2175301 : One thing that I didn't see is a discussion of how many US airports can effectively handle the A380 even if the passenger terminals are modified to ha
81 Bond007 : You could easily half those flights, change a few other schedules minimally, and satisfy most connection requirements. I'm not saying the problem is
82 Stitch : I know AA "de-peaked" ORD to try and spread flights out a bit more and reduce congestion, but such a plan requires more planes then less since you no
83 Boeing743 : I know that 4 airports that are fitten to handl Airbus 380 are JFK, LAX, ORD & IAD. They spent a lot of money on upgrade runway, taxiway and gates for
84 Fridgmus : They would not be brought into a combat zone, they would fly into a secure rear area and then flown by military aircraft or if the situation warrants
85 Thorben : Why does the runway need to be "upgraded", why the taxiways? A380s don't need longer runways than others, and they don't need bigger curves at taxiwa
86 Post contains links PlaneHunter : Here are some answers: http://www.airaccidentdigest.com/0507_story8.html PH
87 Stitch : The engine overhang for the outboards and the wings themselves might cause them to not clear obstructions on the runway or the taxiway. And with an 8
88 2175301 : The issue in this case is that the A380 wingspan is long enough that in the vast majority of existing airports that the taxiway is too close to the r
89 FLYGUY767 : What then are the real numbers of the 747-800 vs A380 sold? -JD
90 Stitch : A388 Total - 174 (including commitments) 748 Total - 87 A388 Passenger Total - 174 (including commitments) 748 Passenger Total - 24 (including 747BBJ
91 FLYGUY767 : Stitch, Thank You for the numbers.. -JD
92 Halls120 : If these figures are correct, I see a limited future for the A380, at least in the US. It would likely take decades and billions to widen/relocate ta
93 Viscount724 : That would also apply to NW which I believe has more operations at NRT than UA. However when the extension of the 2nd runway at NRT is completed in a
94 FLYGUY767 : 100% Correct -JD
95 EBJ1248650 : More than likely, if you see U.S. airlines buy the A380, it will be for use on their routes to other continents; most certainly not within the contine
96 Post contains links and images ShannoninAMA : Not to be off topic, but Some US airlines dont look half bad Modified Airliner Photos:Design © EDINEYTemplate © French Frogs AirSlides Modified Airl
97 TISTPAA727 : Bringing together what some have said and some additional points, the US market is just too different. The US population is very well dispersed with m
98 2175301 : Could someone provide how long the A380 has been offered for sale compared to the 748? The A380 must have been on sale for many years (considering th
99 Stitch : The A380 was offered for sale in the late 1990s. Upon reaching 50 orders (55, actually), the program was formally given permission to launch in Decem
100 Zvezda : DEN? Have you looked at UA's international operations out of DEN?
101 Dallasnewark : AA will not buy another Airbust product in the foreseeable future, because of the Nov 2001 disaster. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the chance of AA
102 Stitch : DEN has the runway for the A380, and it is likely DEN will slowly start to gain their own international ops to save passengers from double-connecting
103 EI321 : who? When I think of A380 hubs, Denver is not one that springs to mind!
104 Congaboy : As many have stated, I think the only carriers the A380 makes sense for is NW and UA, mainly I agree with Zvezda when he says it could work as a subfl
105 Ha763 : Bad example. Japan's domestic market is all about frequency. Let's take your example of HND-ITM. On JAL, you have flights almost every hour on the bo
106 Zvezda : We may see A350/787 flights from DEN to intercontinental destinations, but nothing bigger. I've flown LH from DEN to FRA and noticed that flight is o
107 Stitch : Does LH still fly the 744 to DEN?
108 Zvezda : LH currently operate the A340-600 to DEN.
109 Bond007 : Well, you answered you own question. It's not so much frequency as necessity. If you are already using the biggest aircraft feasible for that route,
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...
US Airlines And The 737-600 posted Sat Oct 18 2003 00:59:44 by COEWRNJ
Extra Capacity And The A380 -no Advantage Imho posted Sat Nov 25 2006 12:30:08 by Eugdog
DFW, DEN, And The A380 posted Mon Oct 9 2006 02:06:42 by 1337Delta764
Airlines And The Cultural F/A Uniforms posted Tue Sep 5 2006 00:44:14 by TwoLz2Rn
Let The Truth Be Told : ORD And The A380? posted Mon Aug 21 2006 21:11:59 by Ordryan28
US Airways And The A350XWB posted Tue Jul 18 2006 05:33:57 by Mah584jr
US Airlines And Dirt Cheap Last Minute Fares! posted Thu Jun 29 2006 15:17:59 by Jgold47
US Airlines And Cairo posted Fri Jun 2 2006 02:39:33 by Horus
US Airlines and Passenger Miles posted Thu Jun 1 2006 06:08:14 by JetBlueLuv
SIA And The A380 posted Sun May 21 2006 09:41:04 by Industrybuff