Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Do US Carriers Seem To Prefer A350 V. 380?  
User currently offlineGoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 15075 times:

I remember reading that delta has orders for the a380 but it seems to me the rest have orders for the a350 only. Forgive me if i'm mistake but it seems to me all the a380 talk on a.net is about foreign airlines so maybe i overlooked US carriers? Could it be because US carriers don't think they can fill up seats like the more populated third world countries and the rest w/ a380s can?


From the airport with love
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6729 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 15034 times:

Quoting Goblin211 (Thread starter):
I remember reading that delta has orders for the a380 but it seems to me the rest have orders for the a350 only. Forgive me if i'm mistake but it seems to me all the a380 talk on a.net is about foreign airlines so maybe i overlooked US carriers? Could it be because US carriers don't think they can fill up seats like the more populated third world countries and the rest w/ a380s can?

No US carrier has ordered the A380. Delta has 777s and 787s (from NW) on order. United and US ordered the A350 because they felt it met their needs. DL, CO, AA ordered the 777 and 787 because they felt it met their needs.

Basically, US carriers, unlike other airlines do not have a huge need for VLA (Very Large Aircraft) because they have multiple hubs to diffuse pax through. DL and UA/CO currently have 747s from previous mergers but in both instances, the company being overcome (NW and UA) had order aircraft to replace their VLAs.

So basically, it comes to the lack of need for that. Some may come back and say that it might work for slot restricted airports or to be more economical, but US carriers and US passengers are completely about convenience and frequency over size.



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14883 times:

Don't forget it's also a little hard to fill an A380 when you've only got two classes in the case of CO DL and US. Many of the A380 operators have a 4 class layout (some have 3). I can't really think of a DL route that would fill an A380 when a 744 seems to be doing just fine. In addition it seems most US carriers are more interested in P2P travel and is able to spread out through multiple hubs to bring people in, the 787 and A350 are better suited for multiple P2P routes than the A380

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A380's benefits are maximized on high-density trunk routes. Most countries have one or two hubs. So for foreign carriers connecting from their home hub to a foreign hub, the A380 is a powerful performer.

The United States is different. We have many hubs spread across a large land mass. For US carriers, they don't fly high-density trunk routes, but instead fly multiple frequencies from their domestic hubs to the foreign hub. So they can't really maximize the benefits an A380 brings and prefer smaller planes that are more flexible.

Yes, there are a handful of routes that a UA or a DL could put an A380 on (JFK-LHR or SFO-NRT), but a fleet of 2-4 A380s is too small for a US flag carrier to effectively utilize so they would instead fly multiple frequencies (if not from the same domestic hub, then from multiple domestic hubs).


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8094 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14738 times:

The A380 is a very limited airplane right now. Most airports can't handle it, most airlines can't fill it, and most routes don't warrant it. If you look at the airlines flying the A380 right now, they're only on a very small number of routes with very large capacity requirements. The US simply doesn't have any routes that would warrant a fleet of A380s. We don't even have very many 747s left over here...


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14588 times:

No need because all the North American A380 traffic will be taken care of by Asian and European airlines!!! And alliances of the US majors!

I think by 2020 the US will be 2nd to only Dubai in A380 movements.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13922 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 5):
No need because all the North American A380 traffic will be taken care of by Asian and European airlines!!! And alliances of the US majors!

I think by 2020 the US will be 2nd to only Dubai in A380 movements.

  

And yet none of the US majors will be operating any.


User currently offlineml86 From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13649 times:

I don't doubt that UA or DL would find profitable uses for the A380, but the size of the fleet likely wouldn't exceed 10-12 frames (being generous). This may or may not be a feasible fleet size. (VS has fewer than 10 frames on order, and BA is right around 10).

Only time will tell. As air traffic demand grows in key world markets frequency will be maximized and the carriers will turn to higher capacity aircraft to increase market share. The old a.net "no US carrier will ever order A380, period" theories are very short sighted.


User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13389 times:

Where did you read that Delta ordered the A380? Hasn't happened yet, but out of any American carrier, I could see Delta ordering a few of them for flights to their NRT hub, and possibly other DTW-Asia flights.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12936 times:

I don't think DL would order the A-380, they are doing just fine with the B-747-400, and may be looking to pick up a few more. The same with UA (although I doubt they need any more B-744s right now). Also, the US carriers, should they decide they are in the market for some VLAs, they have the B-747-8I to look at that may, or may not suit their needs. With the US carriers already having the B-787 on order, going to the B-747-8I for a VLA gives them a near common engine if the order the GEnx, and near common avoinics with the current B-747-400s. For DL, the raked wingtips are common to the B-77L, and for AA (which I doubt would order any VLA) with the B-77W. The -8I also shares a few other common parts with the -400, doesn't it?

User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1039 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Goblin211 (Thread starter):
Could it be because US carriers don't think they can fill up seats like the more populated third world countries and the rest w/ a380s can?

So think of the current a380 operator countries. France, Germany, Dubai, Australia, Singapore. Hardly third world!? Infact, dubai is one of the fastest growing economies (albeit with a few dents) and Australia is the only industrialised nation to avoid any recession in recent years.

Back on topic, the A380 and A350 are completey different aircraft designed for different markets and missions, so not fair to compare them.

Sandyb123



DC3, 727, 737, 744, 753, 777, A32X, A345, A388, ERJ145, E190, BaE146, D328, ATR72, Q400
User currently offlineexFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12715 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
For US carriers, they don't fly high-density trunk routes, but instead fly multiple frequencies from their domestic hubs to the foreign hub.

And when it comes to Europe, the increasing tendency for US carriers to want to bypass that foreign hub whenever possible and fly directly into destination cities. The recession has led to some reduction of these services (like my beloved EWR-BRS nonstop), but it's still the US carriers' philosophy, and the 787 and A350 will likely lead to more of these services to more Pacific destinations.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12470 times:

Quoting exFATboy (Reply 11):

And when it comes to Europe, the increasing tendency for US carriers to want to bypass that foreign hub whenever possible and fly directly into destination cities

I think that is a major reason. The US airlines fly from their hub to secondary and even tertiary markets in Europe and sometimes are the only airline with long haul service from certain airports (unless EK has its way). Would BA ever fly long haul from Newcastle or Glasgow? Of course not, but CO makes it work thus avoiding an LHR connection and a flight on a widebody.

The Asia markets are a bit different, but US - Asia capacity does not come close to US - Europe capacity. I think the only realistic cities that work for a US airline are NRT, HKG, SYD and LHR if they are willing to sacrifice frequency.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12097 times:

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 10):
So think of the current a380 operator countries. France, Germany, Dubai, Australia, Singapore. Hardly third world!? Infact, dubai is one of the fastest growing economies (albeit with a few dents) and Australia is the only industrialised nation to avoid any recession in recent years.

So back to the primary reason why US carriers are not looking at the A380, or 747, how many hubs are there in the countries just listed compared to the US?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The United States is different. We have many hubs spread across a large land mass.

A point which seems very hard to make and or understand.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11727 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4):
The A380 is a very limited airplane right now. Most airports can't handle it, most airlines can't fill it, and most routes don't warrant it.

Sorry, do you perhaps want to research and then elaborate on that? 1. Virtually any airport capable of handling a 747 can handle an A380. 2. The world class airlines who operate it don't seem to have any problem filling it. 3. The A380 isn't designed/meant for most routes

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4):
The US simply doesn't have any routes that would warrant a fleet of A380s. We don't even have very many 747s left over here...

In other words, the truth is it doesn't suit US routes.....better to state it accurately than incorrect information!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Also, the US carriers, should they decide they are in the market for some VLAs, they have the B-747-8I to look at that may, or may not suit their needs.

And if they find it doesn't suit their needs but they still need a VLA......then what's your conclusion?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
For DL, the raked wingtips are common to the B-77L, and for AA (which I doubt would order any VLA) with the B-77W

Hmmm, sorry, but could you explain what the raked wingtips of DL and AA's 777's and have to do with US carriers ordering an A380?


User currently offlineORDFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11673 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):

A point which seems very hard to make and or understand.

It's pure demographics: what's so hard to understand that the U.S. has almost 30 metropolitan cities/regions consisting of over 2 million people scattered throughout the country, 10 of those have metro populations of over 5 million, and that's where you'll find most of our hubs: San Fran, LA, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Wash DC, etc. Then you get a few more that close: Minneapolis, Detroit, Denver, Boston, etc. Where are Germany's biggest hubs, or the UK's? How many hubs in the Netherlands, Singapore, or UAE relative to their major metro areas?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11419 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

The United States is different. We have many hubs spread across a large land mass. For US carriers, they don't fly high-density trunk routes, but instead fly multiple frequencies from their domestic hubs to the foreign hub. So they can't really maximize the benefits an A380 brings and prefer smaller planes that are more flexible.

That's part of it. We also don't have slot restrictions like they do in the rest of the world that reduce frequency to improve on-time performance because to do so would be "socialist." (Sorry for the editorial).

In markets like Asia and Europe where there are heavy slot restrictions, larger aircraft make more sense. In the U.S., they don't.

The largest aircraft operated by any US airline is the 744. And that's only because that was the longest-range aircraft available at the time (DL and AA bought the MD-11 and were sorry for it).

Since the 777, no US carrier has ordered any aircraft larger than a 772 except for AA's recent enigmatic order for 2 77W airframes.


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 744 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11235 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
That's part of it. We also don't have slot restrictions like they do in the rest of the world that reduce frequency to improve on-time performance because to do so would be "socialist." (Sorry for the editorial).

In markets like Asia and Europe where there are heavy slot restrictions, larger aircraft make more sense. In the U.S., they don't.

In the future that will change. JFK is famous for great pictures of long lines of taxing aircraft. One day someone will work out the great waste of productive time and resources that involves. There is a thread on here about NYC needing new runways. Eventually that will become impossible and the scarce resource of runway slots (either pre allocated or not) will cause airlines to order bigger and then bigger aircraft.


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 819 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11039 times:

I believe someone else brought this up in another thread and there are many good reasons which have been largely flushed out.

1)

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1):
but US carriers and US passengers are completely about convenience and frequency over size.

100% true. Particularly business travelers who pay most of the fares.

2)

Quoting N766UA (Reply 4):
The US simply doesn't have any routes that would warrant a fleet of A380s. We don't even have very many 747s left over here...

Agreed, the US is much more decentralized and less hub focused now. This is a great a point. Large capacity planes are already over here but other than the occasional 772 you don't many flying domestic routes.

Quoting ml86 (Reply 7):
This may or may not be a feasible fleet size. (VS has fewer than 10 frames on order, and BA is right around 10).

As far as the 10-12 frames for Delta goes. It might make sense for NYC-LON or SFO-LON and a few other routes but the problem is that the fleet cost of introducing 10 new behemoths and union hassles make it hard. I really doubt a US carrier will order the plane. Seems like most are ok with 773, 787, and A350. They are really replacing 1 A380 on the route with some combination of the former planes in greater frequency. I think the greenest option is 1 A380 per day though. It's also the lowest cost option but its not the free market solution because customers will pay more for frequency,


User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8091 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A380 is too big for most routes operated by US airlines and not worth the investment for a few planes. The A350-900 is right in the sweetspot in size needed for most US airlines international operations. ITs a very capable plane able to go to Asia as well as Europe and to Argentina, Chile and Brazil. Even US to India & the Middle East is possible with the A350. Can you say Airbus 777, that's the A350.

User currently offlineairfrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10905 times:

The US carriers took the brunt of the 747 glut, and then were decimated when the 767 and 757 fragmented the Atlantic. Now that the 787 is coming, they don't want to risk the same thing happening again.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10500 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 17):
In the future that will change. JFK is famous for great pictures of long lines of taxing aircraft. One day someone will work out the great waste of productive time and resources that involves. There is a thread on here about NYC needing new runways. Eventually that will become impossible and the scarce resource of runway slots (either pre allocated or not) will cause airlines to order bigger and then bigger aircraft.

Maybe not, because of the point made below.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 5):
No need because all the North American A380 traffic will be taken care of by Asian and European airlines!!! And alliances of the US majors!

As international carriers consolidate their flights onto A380's into the US congestion will go down on those arrival / departure times, the situation will probably stay as same old same old.

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 15):
It's pure demographics:

Every time these threads come up about the USA and A380's a number of non-US folks just don't seem to understand the point, it is probably better for them to regard it as A versus B battle, much easier  


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10006 times:

Quoting Goblin211 (Thread starter):
I remember reading that delta has orders for the a380 but it seems to me the rest have orders for the a350 only. Forgive me if i'm mistake but it seems to me all the a380 talk on a.net is about foreign airlines so maybe i overlooked US carriers? Could it be because US carriers don't think they can fill up seats like the more populated third world countries and the rest w/ a380s can?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The A380's benefits are maximized on high-density trunk routes. Most countries have one or two hubs. So for foreign carriers connecting from their home hub to a foreign hub, the A380 is a powerful performer.

To put a finer point on it, the airplane has its most value where you have very limited traffic rights and too much traffic for the level of traffic rights. In a free economy with most countries under open skies agreements, there are simply too few routes where the market is big enough to drive enough passenger per flight to need the A380. Similarly, the RJ was much more popular in the USA than other countries because competition means more frequency and more frequency often means fewer passengers per flight. The 757 is another example. It is so popular because it is the smallest long-haul A/C. Small routes have limited competition and those are more profitable than mass market routes with low fares and high volumes. High volume, high fare markets don't exist in the USA because of competition.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13255 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9729 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why Do US Carriers Seem To Prefer A350 V. 380?

Why buy a Greyhound bus if your family only needs a minivan or SUV?

Obviously I'm taking this to the ridiculous, but I think you get the idea.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9293 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 18):
It's also the lowest cost option but its not the free market solution because customers will pay more for frequency,

Really, customers paying more????? That's headline news to me.



When I doubt... go running!
25 sandyb123 : My point was more taking issue to major economic superpowers being referred to as the third world. SIN, CDG, DXB are all major hubs, granted. But the
26 328JET : LOL! No, it is the most capable longrange airliner with the best level of comfort. Most airports, which can handle a B77W, B744 or A346, can handle a
27 JBirdAV8r : "Best level of comfort" is a subjective opinion that does not offset these facts, and "most capable longrange [sic] airliner" is certainly up for deb
28 travelavnut : The "most airports can't handle it" is absolutly not true. All airport that should be able to recieve an A380 can recieve an A380. That most routes d
29 JBirdAV8r : Many, many international airports can't receive the A380. "Should be able to" is subjective. Most airports can't handle it, and that's absolutely tru
30 travelavnut : Could you give some examples? From all I know all big major airports can handle the A380. Well I dont know if it's a problem. The A380 was designed f
31 328JET : I think that Airbus is not so unhappy about their sales of longrange airplanes in the US. Three customers for the A350 already with probably one more
32 Burkhard : Since it has not yet been mentioned yet: Slot restrictions and space constraints of the airports. There are many airports in the US that have more run
33 bj87 : Receiving isn't the problem, An A380 can land everywhere a B744 can. It is the getting to the gate that can be problematic at some airports. Because
34 rfields5421 : US airports like BOS, DFW, ATL, MIA, MCO, CLT - are actively pursuing airlines which operate the A380. They want the A380 to land at their airport. I
35 na : Why Do US Carriers Seem To Prefer A350 V. 380? Seems the US is afraid of anything big these days. Also fuel is still cheap enough there that the diffe
36 N766UA : Okay, I'll bite. Let me remind you we're talking about US carriers, so US airports are a primary consideration here and, quite simply, most US airpor
37 Post contains images EPA001 : No, Boston is at present a limited airport. All international major hubs, and also a lot of secondary airports around the world are capable of handli
38 N766UA : 100% completely and entirely your opinion. Exactly that: that most airlines can't fill large planes. Thank you for agreeing with my point. We aren't
39 N766UA : Correct. I said the A380 is limited, not that it will forever be limited. And, by the way, the 747 is limited too. I dunno where you guys get off thi
40 dimoko : this is a silly opinion, look at the fleets of UA, US, Jetblue, Frontier and Virgin America. in the US, you are likely to need a connecting flight to
41 328JET : They fly on the same routes... One starts in europe and ends in europe and one starts in the US and returns to the US. Like for example CDG-JFK-CDG v
42 Braniff727Ultra : If you only have 5 U.S. airports out of the multitude that can handle the 747 it really makes for a tough sell to the board that you need a plane that
43 sydaircargo : what about united´s routes LAX-SYD & LAX-MEL ? cant they take a A380 too, especially to compete with Qantas
44 frmrCapCadet : Res very small fleets. Years ago there was a single 747 doing one round trip a day from Texas to Hawaii, and it seemed to do very well. Did it do as w
45 Post contains images AustrianZRH : Any source for that? Genuine question . What would they be? JFK IAD MIA LAX SFO ? Wouldn't airports like ORD, ANC, SEA or DEN also be able to take th
46 Stitch : I don't think SEA is A380-ready in terms of general operations and I don't believe the Port is planning to make it so. I suppose if US airlines were
47 dennys : I feel thé US do not want any more 4 jets on their fleets . The 340 was about to be delivered in 1992 and all was cancelled suddenly , they bought so
48 N766UA : Here's why that isn't a good example: Just because one airline already flies "airplane X" on "route Y" doesn't mean another airline can viably do the
49 328JET : Maybe 20 percent lower CASM than on the older B744 is an argument...?
50 jfk777 : LH could serve more then a couple US cities with the A380. JFK, IAD, MIA, ORD, Newark, SFO and LAX are all A380 probable cities.
51 N766UA : We get it, you like the A380 better than the 747!
52 mrskyguy : I've always wondered what the possibility could be for intercontinental VLA travel for the cross-country hauls.. say from LAX-JFK for example. The leg
53 DAL767400ER : Do the people in charge at ATL know they are pursuing airlines to bring the A380 to their airport? Last I checked ATL decided not invest any money in
54 rfields5421 : Been there, done that, have the scar. The experience of US carriers is that the largest aircraft (B747) don't work well on those type routes. When on
55 AirCalSNA : I think the A380 would actually be a hard sell to American consumers. We prefer frequency and choices, so smaller aircraft flying more often make sens
56 Post contains images EPA001 : Well you won't get more of it then on the A380. . Every other standard airliner offers (on comparable products) less space.
57 mrskyguy : True, but there's a world of difference between the 744 and an ultra-efficient VLA. I'm not stating that the A380 *IS* that UEVLA, but assuming one e
58 Flaps : CASM is meaningless if the seats are empty. If I only have 300 passengers flying why on earth would I purchase a 500+ seat aircraft that costs more t
59 bikerthai : I'm not an expert in this area, but I would bet, a low cost airline could come in with bunch of 737's to do Newark to John Wayne (or something in tha
60 AirCalSNA : I see what you mean ... that was probably a vague choice of words on my part, but I didn't mean the number of inches around one's particular seat. I
61 Mortyman : Nonsense. As already mentioned airports that can handle the B747 can also handle the A380. There are airports that needs a few minor adjustments mayb
62 par13del : Until the airport is modified and gets official blessings it a no go. Which is what the majority of folks have been saying, the same needs to be done
63 AirlineCritic : I think the real question is why there's a difference between US and foreign airlines. A lot of the arguments in this thread do not seem to apply, bec
64 Viscount724 : I think you question has already been answered in another reply but I don't have time to read the entire thread again. US carriers have multiple hubs
65 AirlineCritic : I understand this, but I don't think it explains the difference. Its the same set of potential customers from country 1 to country 2. If flying to di
66 FlyNWA727 : I'm sorry, but this statement makes absolutely zero sense. I want to nitpick at it, but I can't make enough sense out of it to find a place to start.
67 FX1816 : This isn't a very good argument. Despite what you may think having a few dozen A380's would be worse than having a bunch of smaller aircraft. ATC sep
68 par13del : The A380 cannot make Sydney to New York non-stop, so how many pax are heading to LAX versus NYC and how economic is it for Qantas to fly an A380 from
69 D L X : Why is it that all of the Europeans refuse to accept the answers the Americans are giving them? The 380 is not a good fit for airlines in America. Tha
70 nycdave : Your answer is succinctly given by Par13del right here: Exactly. And again -- it's geography. Why do US airlines have such huge RJ and narrowbody fle
71 davs5032 : ..This pretty much sums it up.
72 rfields5421 : The way I see it - one of two things has to occur before the US airlines shift from multiple departures staggered by a few minutes between identical
73 474218 : Absolutely true. Even the few airlines that operate the A380 do so at at just over half its certified capacity.
74 Post contains images Mortyman : SAS has 3 hubs... OSL, ARN and CPH
75 Stitch : Because they do not have to. Through alliances and codeshares with US carriers, foreigh carriers can fly from their main domestic hub to one of the m
76 D L X : And how long do you think you should expect to wait to see a Scandanavian A380?
77 cpd : Yes, it is true that the majority of all airports can not handle the A380. But the majority of all airports can often not handle even B767 for that m
78 Mortyman : I don't think we will ever see a SAS A380. However, you never know, some other international carrier might occasionally use one to OSL. Not regulare
79 D L X : Wow, that was mature. Back to the topic... That's right. There will never be a Scandinavian A380. Honestly, (and no insult is intended even if deserv
80 Mortyman : Well, there was a time when a B767 was a rare sight at a Norwegian airport. Now we see B777's, B747's and A340's. Who knows what the future brings ? T
81 AirlineCritic : Sorry if I was unclear. I was not trying to claim anything. I was just theorizing about the *potential* reasons why US airlines might not need A380.
82 AustrianZRH : I think one should rather compare the EU with the US, then most of your differences disappear on first sight. Also merged airlines using different br
83 Burkhard : Simple experiment: Use Airliners.net, search the photo data base for B747-400 passenger aircraft in the US soreted by recent years and look at the fi
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 Do US Carriers Charge For Food? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 19:59:06 by Moolies
Why Don't US Carriers Fly To The ME posted Fri Jul 13 2001 16:36:12 by Bokratensa
Why No US Carriers To KUL posted Wed Mar 3 2010 16:27:03 by Qantas777
Why No US Carriers To TIJ? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 16:34:18 by RobertS975
Why No US Carriers To Iceland? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 02:18:07 by CIDflyer
Why Not All Non-Euro/US Carriers Transfer To Lhr? posted Sun Feb 10 2002 16:09:30 by Airmale
Do Any US Carriers Fly To Russia, And Africa? posted Sun Oct 22 2000 07:13:56 by ILUV767
Why Wont US Bring A F/C Product To 70+ Seaters? posted Sun Dec 26 2010 00:25:17 by eraugrad02
Why Don't US Carriers Order The A380? #2 posted Thu Jun 10 2010 13:11:06 by scbriml