Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380?  
User currently offlineATLflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 736 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 44296 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?

262 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 44328 times:

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

User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6761 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 44306 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.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4420 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 44171 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.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3607 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 44017 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.


PHX based
User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 43811 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

User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3472 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 43672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.... ?

User currently online2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 43371 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).


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 43273 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.


User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 41670 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.....


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 41524 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.  


User currently offlineplatinumfoota From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 41441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!!



Never forget United 93
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25049 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 41306 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.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinepylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 40992 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.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9997 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 40494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


User currently offlineXaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 40313 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.



An open mind is not an empty one
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 39611 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.

User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 39121 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.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 38528 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.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 38468 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.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 37857 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]


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 37508 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.


User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 37428 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.



[edit post]
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 36940 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.


User currently online2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 36903 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).


25 Post contains images astuteman : 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 d
26 2175301 : 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
27 Post contains links keesje : 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 DT
28 Post contains images par13del : I'll use the quote below to respond. Well using another a.net myth, no one will take a USA carrier operated A380 flight over a foreign operated A380
29 Carls : WOW! Even in a fully loaded 747 or A380 you will be able to get out of the plane in less than half hour.
30 ltbewr : 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
31 Post contains images keesje : 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 se
32 jfk777 : 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
33 brilondon : 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 hau
34 Stitch : US customers do prefer more frequency and non-stop flights domestically, but I agree it's not accurate to project that preference to international ser
35 Post contains links keesje : So they'll cut down on capasity and/or increase their daily flights to booming Asian markets, with their homecarriers gaining ground with their super
36 angelmonsteral : 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 Boein
37 merlot : 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 i
38 jfk777 : Hey "newcomers" ANA and JAL fly mostly 777-300ER to teh US mainland, no A380's yet and unlikely for sveral reasons.
39 UAL747 : 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
40 Post contains images Asiaflyer : 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
41 zeke : Many of the reasons why people operate the A380 are the same as what was needed when the 747-100 was launched. Not at all. The reason why the A380 an
42 XaraB : American had not operated anything bigger than the MD11 for several years before introducing the 777, and wasn't particularly happy with the MD11. Co
43 Post contains images par13del : 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,
44 adamblang : 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 m
45 KU747 : 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 c
46 UALWN : DL flies 747s. UA flies them to Australia, to Asia and to Europe. None, actually. But do US customers prefer frequency more than, say, Japanese custo
47 Stitch : 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 n
48 Post contains images Longhornmaniac : This post isn't getting enough love. You want your answer, it's in there. Cheers, Cameron
49 Post contains images keesje : Well he did look at a few aspects and reaches the conclusion : Probably the right conclusion. Maybe DL and/or UA will order A380s, maybe not. I wonde
50 merlot : 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 t
51 Post contains images pnwtraveler : 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.
52 ATLflyer : Definitely wrong. 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.
53 PGNCS : So aircraft that make even less economic sense for the routes being flown can't lose money faster?
54 United Airline : You might see UA getting the A 380 after a few years
55 UALWN : 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. Th
56 bohica : 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 bandwag
57 UALWN : Do you have any facts to support this statement? So do we finally understand why the legacy USA airlines have done comparably worse than the top fore
58 zeke : I think you may want to state what your point is, that makes no point at all. I was around back then, and the 1999 Airbus market outlook is not that
59 ncfc99 : 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 g
60 zeke : 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 oth
61 ER757 : 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
62 merlot : 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
63 maddog888 : which you then lose sitting on a taxiway waiting for the dozens of other small aircraft all waiting to get anywhere near a runway! er... "nonstop"? w
64 LAXintl : 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. Delt
65 hawkercaMM : 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
66 zeke : 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 A
67 futureorthopod : 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 bas
68 merlot : Yes, of course they do, thats why I quote net orders, which includes cancelations - but your happiness in Boeing cancellations announces your agenda.
69 vin2basketball : Exactly 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 p
70 maddog888 : 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
71 ERJ170 : 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. Als
72 kanban : 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 v
73 briguy1974 : 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 partnershi
74 adamblang : 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 w
75 LipeGIG : 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/
76 Post contains images EPA001 : Would be something right? 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
77 hawkercaMM : 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 em
78 airfrnt : Clearly, Southwest Airlines, which is the most successful and until recently, the largest airline in the world knows something about profitability. T
79 rwy04lga : Welcome to A.net!
80 ml86 : I understand that the US market is principally driven by frequency, particularly for business travelers. However fuel prices will likely continue to r
81 FlyWhisperjets : 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 sound
82 FlyWhisperjets : There are no American passenger 77W's ....777ER/LR do just fine!
83 LipeGIG : 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
84 cslusarc : What a long read. Like some you, I doubt that in today's environment any North American airline will ever order the A388. Well if there was frequent q
85 Post contains images XaraB : 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
86 keesje : 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,
87 Cerecl : 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 t
88 Burkhard : 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 t
89 UALWN : 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 kep
90 rheinwaldner : - 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.
91 maxter : 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 n
92 sydaircargo : 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
93 Post contains images astuteman : 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
94 avek00 : 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, t
95 RJ111 : 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
96 CYatUK : 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 servic
97 Cerecl : 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
98 avek00 : 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
99 avek00 : 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 internat
100 avek00 : The possibility of USA carriers using A380s on TPAC is being greatly undermined by the opening of access to Tokyo International Airport (Haneda). Ove
101 ozglobal : Uhhm....., no. Qantas, covers a domestic market roughly the same physical dimensions as the USA and serves 59 different DOMESTIC destinations with a
102 ozglobal : 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
103 RJ111 : 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) bo
104 sydaircargo : 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 a
105 PPVRA : I'd like to see JFK, EWR privatized and given pricing freedom and then see if no US airline order VLAs. There is some truth to this argument, however.
106 bikerthai : 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.
107 pnwtraveler : Logic has little to do with customer preferences and purchasing patterns. IF passengers were voting with their bums in seats, according to logic, 747
108 N14AZ : 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.netter
109 ozglobal : 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 domes
110 zeke : 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 t
111 avek00 : US air carriers derive a far higher proportion of their revenues from domestic flying than legacies elsewhere in the world. US airlines are different
112 ScottB : 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 b
113 Post contains images N14AZ : You forgot a small local air taxi company called Lufthansa in that list LH: FRA-JFK, FRA-MIA
114 ozglobal : 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. Tha
115 UALWN : Irrelevant examples: WN does not fly internationally, FR does not fly intercontinental. If they did, they would fly widebodies. Add FRA-SFO.
116 RJ111 : 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
117 ScottB : 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 combi
118 jfk777 : 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. B
119 Post contains links ScottB : http://www.metrodenver.org/blog-tags...n-Denver-international-flight.html Now, I will be happy to amend to "studied" ANA service between NRT and DEN.
120 YULWinterSkies : 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 y
121 Kaiarahi : LH no longer positions DUS as a hub. It describes its hubs as FRA, MUC, ZRH, VIE, and BRU.
122 UALWN : 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
123 kanban : 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 g
124 Post contains images lightsaber : 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 (th
125 Solent : 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 ai
126 XT6Wagon : The backlash against using public funds to make Airports A380 ready certainly hurts any airline acceptance for use in the US. Even here I don't see i
127 Post contains images avek00 : Yes, despite the vitriol often displayed against USA legacies here, they DO win awards for their longhaul products and service. Continental, for inst
128 huaiwei : 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?
129 ozglobal : 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 a
130 UALWN : 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 countr
131 CHRISBA777ER : 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 t
132 CHRISBA777ER : 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 o
133 Post contains links huaiwei : 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
134 Burkhard : 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 wh
135 XT6Wagon : 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
136 UALWN : 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 be
137 2175301 : 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 produc
138 Burkhard : 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.
139 Post contains images par13del : 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 la
140 avek00 : Lambaste US carriers all you want, but they simply wont be ordering A380s. American carriers will stick to the flexibility and advanced technology of
141 Post contains images keesje : They justify VLAs. They launched the 744 and operate them since from those big hubs
142 Post contains links UALWN : Speaking about the others... http://www.emirates.com/at/english/a...etail.aspx?article=575643&offset=0
143 Thorben : 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 i
144 UALWN : LH flies to HKG from FRA, MUC, and ZRH. CO from EWR. UA from SFO and ORD. Your point again?
145 Post contains images Kaiarahi : 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
146 huaiwei : 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 n
147 Post contains images huaiwei : 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 belie
148 Thorben : 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
149 huaiwei : 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, si
150 UALWN : 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+
151 Thorben : 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
152 Post contains images PHLBOS : Another thing worth noting was that most if not airports serving large metropolitian cities upgraded/expanded their airports and airfields to handle
153 UALWN : And yet, only 25 748is have been ordered, by only two airlines, none of them from the USA. In the country where the market reigns supreme? You can't
154 Delimit : That's a myth we Americans like to tell ourselves. It has very little basis in reality.
155 PHLBOS : That's because, and this has been stated earlier, most routes served by US airlines can be operated with smaller equipment. Additionally, just how ol
156 pylon101 : 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
157 Eagleboy : 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 ope
158 bikerthai : 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
159 UALWN : I understand all this. But how is this related to your original statement "Additionally, privatizing airports wouldn't sit too well with its neighbor
160 Delimit : Public airports are run by organizations that are more directly answerable to the local government.
161 Post contains images mogandoCI : US airlines have this ridiculous notion that passengers *NEED* ten jillion frequencies for 15 hour long-haul flights that crosses 8 time zones, so the
162 UALWN : Local governments give (or not) the permits that public and private airports need in order to expand. See BAA and LHR, for instance.
163 Post contains images astuteman : 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
164 FX1816 : 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
165 Post contains images EPA001 : 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 bi
166 panamair : 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
167 futureorthopod : 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
168 UALWN : Because otherwise somebody else will do it. Oh wait, EK just did it...
169 ozglobal : I) the "majority of Americans" never fly long haul internationally in there lifetimes so have little input for carrier strategy II) they prefer frequ
170 UALWN : I can't agree more!
171 ozglobal : 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 co
172 DCA-ROCguy : 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
173 UALWN : 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 necess
174 RJ111 : 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
175 OA412 : 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
176 ozglobal : 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 th
177 Post contains images PHLBOS : 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
178 Delimit : 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 co
179 Flighty : 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 possibl
180 ZKNBS : 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 fin
181 UALWN : 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
182 Post contains images ozglobal : 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 ai
183 Post contains links casinterest : 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
184 Flighty : 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 f
185 UALWN : 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. Europ
186 UALWN : 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 SI
187 casinterest : 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 Fra
188 bwvilla : 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?
189 Post contains links RJ111 : 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 d
190 jfk777 : 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 tw
191 casinterest : 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
192 casinterest : But these airports have international traffic , and generally long distance traffic that is condusive to the A380. But these flights are not condusiv
193 Post contains images UALWN : 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 o
194 casinterest : Don't get to caught up in those frequency numbers. Remember there is more point to point service in the US and less hubbing.
195 FlyPNS1 : 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 fi
196 mikey72 : 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 absol
197 UALWN : 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 l
198 casinterest : 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 th
199 RJ111 : 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. Tim
200 Post contains images Superfly : US airlines are too damn cheap to order 747-8s and A380s.
201 Post contains links Jambrain : 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 th
202 keesje : I think the title should be : Why Didn't US Carriers Order The A380? We have at least 20 yrs to go..
203 ssides : Yeah, they've got tons of cash lying around to make a very risky buy of several of the largest airliners ever manufactured. Most US carriers do have
204 UALWN : 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
205 UALWN : 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 i
206 manfredj : 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 frequenc
207 Superfly : Do we really need 85+ flights a day on smaller aircraft between major US cities?
208 FlyPNS1 : 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 ca
209 Post contains links and images keesje : 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 wee
210 Thorben : No, and that is one of the reasons US carriers are losing money all the time with all those tiny aircraft. Why do people always think the A380 used b
211 RJ111 : 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 re
212 Post contains images DCA-ROCguy : By any objective measure, the noise issue usually is indeed a bunch of Mr. Hankey. Aircraft are exponentially quieter today than the Mohawk/ Alleghen
213 bwvilla : 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 compe
214 RJ111 : 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 -
215 Delimit : 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
216 par13del : 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
217 kanban : 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 60-7
218 DCA-ROCguy : 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. T
219 Superfly : (checkmark} I was thinking the same. So how come the fares aren't that low? How come I can get a $60 ticket between cities in Asia on premium carrier
220 FX1816 : Who's flying CRJ's on routes like SFO-JFK??? That would be a huge mistake if anyone was. FX1816
221 ericaasen : 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 betwee
222 mikey72 : Sorry I should of said a greater concentration of very large aircraft on certain routes.
223 UALWN : 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 question would rat
224 Post contains images par13del : 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 f
225 RJ111 : 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
226 ozglobal : 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
227 FlyPNS1 : 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 c
228 UALWN : 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 Portla
229 DCA-ROCguy : 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 tim
230 Delimit : 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 ch
231 UALWN : 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.
232 par13del : 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 gr
233 norcal : 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
234 UALWN : 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
235 UALWN : 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, a
236 rheinwaldner : 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
237 Delimit : 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
238 UALWN : 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 cit
239 norcal : But if the opportunity doesn't exist or isn't profitable, then what is the point of operating the 18-wheeler?
240 UALWN : 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 go
241 UALWN : 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
242 RJ111 : 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 appa
243 Delimit : 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 pro
244 Thorben : 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
245 FX1816 : 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
246 RJ111 : 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 b
247 UALWN : It was just an academical example. BA flies mostly 744s on the route, so consolidation into 388s isn't so obvious anyway.
248 Delimit : 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 a
249 Thorben : 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 th
250 mikey72 : 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 w
251 Post contains images keesje : 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
252 Thorben : 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
253 Delimit : They operate 747s because they purchased them back when they were the only plane that could perform those missions, not because they needed additiona
254 norcal : 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
255 Post contains images keesje : Maybe I should have used a different picture. FRA AMS
256 FX1816 : 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
257 Delimit : 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
258 Post contains images astuteman : 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 A3
259 Revelation : 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
260 XT6Wagon : 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
261 Post contains links scbriml : 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)
262 norcal : Many legacy work groups have adopted more favorable rules and become much more efficient. The only one that is really "hanging on" is AA The gap betw
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...
Why Don't US Carriers Fly To SA? posted Tue Feb 1 2005 12:59:45 by Bluepoole
Why Don't US Carriers Make Money? posted Thu Nov 27 2003 07:18:53 by Qantasclub
Why Don't US Carriers Brand Domestic F As C? posted Tue Jun 10 2003 00:29:33 by Zrs70
Would Any US Airline Order The A380? posted Sat Dec 23 2000 21:11:20 by Expex
Why Don't More US Carriers Fly The Q400? posted Tue Sep 29 2009 13:53:48 by LHCVG
Why Haven't Any US Carriers Ordered The 7E7? posted Sat Jul 31 2004 02:56:39 by Horus
Why Only Two US Carriers With The B734? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 06:12:51 by VH-BZF
Why No US Carriers To KUL posted Wed Mar 3 2010 16:27:03 by Qantas777
Question:would Cathay Order The A380 If.. posted Wed Nov 19 2008 00:52:01 by Beaucaire
Why Don't They Just Truck The Cargo... posted Wed Jul 16 2008 19:48:13 by Boeing727