NYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, RR: 10 Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17536 times:
I have A380s on the mind, as I am taking my first flight in one on Monday morning, JFK-ICN on KE. Can't wait.
It got me thinking, which U.S. airlines, if any, would be likeliest to operate one? And on which routes?
Here are candidates I came up with:
DL:
JFK-LAX, JFK-SFO, JFK-LHR, JFK-NRT, JFK-AMS, JFK-MCO, JFK-FLL, JFK-ATL (the latter to be marketed towards pax connecting in ATL - obviously the business crowd uses LGA). Of all these routes I could see JFK-NRT as most feasible.
AA (assuming they were financially healthy, of course):
JFK-LAX, JFK-SFO, JFK-LHR, JFK-MIA
I doubt any route can support more than one airline's A380, so CDG and FRA are out from JFK. Not sure if UA could make EWR-FRA work in light of LH.
Profitable business travelers seem to prefer frequency of flights, so perhaps it's not possible to use the A380 on a business-oriented domestic route. But maybe a high-traffic leisure route, such as NYC-Florida, is more feasible?
I know this is mostly pie-in-the-sky thinking, but I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
MWHCVT From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 573 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17487 times:
I don't think that that you will see it on any domestic routes, there seems to be a fascination with frequency, I'm convinced that some over the other side of the pond would fly 50 seater jets trans con if they had the range, and and a flight JFK-LAX every 5 minutes
Matt
MWHCVT
Must think up a new one soon, slow moving brain trying to get into gear ;)
tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17409 times:
There is probably none currently but I understand John Leahy at Airbus has stated that he still believes that one of the airlines with extensive Asian destinations (ie DL or UA) will eventually need to look at the A380 as traffic on North Pacific routes grow.
Obvious routes would therefore be things like:
HKG-NYC
SIN-LAX
NRT-LAX
NRT-NYC
ICN-LAX
SYD-LAX
As you can see, many of these routes are already serviced by western Pacific airlines using A380s so as well as the traffic requirements, the US airlines may look at the A380 so they can offer similar product levels to their competitors. The A380 is recognised as being the best on offer currently in all classes and many airlines operating the A380 say they can see their pax actively seeking out the A380 and are prepared to pay a slight premium.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17330 times:
NYCFlyer
You may get grilled for this question, believe me, two or three weeks ago, I learned this lessen the hard way.
I would love to see A380s in UA or DL liveries, but here in the States, we have too many large cities with large airports, which big twins can fly into. Most A380 routes, are to hub airports in countries with at most, two international airports, where the US has tons of international airports. This is why it's not likely, that I will fly over seas on an US Airline. If I have to spend 12 hours on a flight, I want the a/c to be big and powered by four engines, and attractive and young f/a.
Do not get me wrong, I really like your thinking, but sadly UA and DL, do not see things the same way.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5298 posts, RR: 47 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17227 times:
I think the greatest chance would be UA with their NRT and SFO hubs. DL with their NRT hub may be another contender. That being said, I think the chances are pretty low. IIRC, DL's 744 fleet was in jeopardy for a while, but we decided to keep them. They're good to have, but DL wouldn't go out of their way to acquire them if they didn't have them (just an opinion!)
I think if we see a large increase in the Asia-US market we may see UA or DL order them. But think of it this way, AF, KL, LH, KE, etc mostly have routes that go from XXX-their one and only hub-XXX. With UA, you can have XXX-ORD, XXX-SFO, XXX-LAX and DL can be XXX-DTW, XXX-LAX, XXX-SEA for example. Because the options are more split, it divides the passengers coming from XXX to the US, thus the A380 or 747 isn't always needed. I think that's how it works, but I may be wrong.
When the world economy is healthy and Asia traffic increases, start looking at UA or maybe DL, that would probably be when they'd order them.
jetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17181 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
I'd love to get a chance to fly the A380 domestically, but trying to get a 744 is tough enough. I think US airlines are in love with the 777 too much to hop on the A380 bandwagon. It isn't because it's Airbus, but because it's too big. The 777 seems perfect for most international routes to the Pacific that airlines like DL and UA fly. But boy would a DL A380 be a beautiful looking bird.
Blue
Professor Foltz: You push down on that yolk, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yolk, the houses get bigger.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2160 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17069 times:
Yup same opinion here, would absolutly love to see a UA or DL A380, indeed as my screen name suggests, I enjoy the obsurd to some extent, (An RW A380), I digress. Yeah I have to agree with most here, it's too big for our market, especially domestic. Heck, you can hardly get a widebody to Hawaii any more, except HA, let alone transcon, except AA. Sorry, wonderful vision, unrealistic in reality.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SEA-KOA on DH4/738 in F, HA KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2244 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16974 times:
I would be surpassed if DL ever got an A380. They don't seem to be ready to order the 748, which is smaller. Why would they want to go bigger? However, I can see (very outside possibility) the LAX/SFO/JFK - NRT routes. I could also see LAX/PVG someday.
I think the most likely possibility would be UA with flights to the NRT hub.
qfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16929 times:
Not a chance. Only AA has gone with anything as big as the 77W. Their multi-hub and high frequency networks make the VLA model pretty dubious. Never say never...........................but!
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16836 times:
Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 8): Not a chance. Only AA has gone with anything as big as the 77W. Their multi-hub and high frequency networks make the VLA model pretty dubious.
UA and NW(DL now), has been flying 747s for decades.
I do not see US carriers flying with more frequencies than Asian carriers between US and Asia. Rather opposite.
Thats a myth that should be put to sleep.
If US carriers could attract enough travellers to fill A380s, they would be delighted to do so.
The question remains, will they be able to do so, or will future growth be absorbed by asian carriers, flying A380s at unbeatable CASM?
slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2452 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16748 times:
I think people on here are too quick to say that no us airline will ever order an A380 but remember alot of a.neters also screamed AA would never order from airbus. I personally think its unlikely just because its too big but not impossible for big routes like JFK-LHR or LAX-SYD or SFO-NRT etc etc. IF fuel shoots up super high it might be the most economical way to fly these big runners. A huge spike in fuel and also a good economy would probably be the thing to get them to order for limited international use.
On the domestic side you would never see an A380 on a route like JFK-LAX/SFO im convinced. Frequency is the most important thing for the profitable frequent flyers and that is why we have seen all of the legacies but AA move from widebody to narrowbody service and AA is almost certainly going to do narrowbody when they retire the fuel guzzling 767s.
MarcoPoloWorld From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 600 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16744 times:
John Leahy was asked about the A380 and US carriers topic yesterday:
"There are only two operators of the (Boeing ) 747 in the U.S.: United and Northwest-Delta . And yes, those guys are in my sights, particularly United," Leahy said.
"Everyone in Asia-Pacific has A380s now... If you want to compete in Asia-Pacific, at some point in time United is going to have to get on board with the A380," he added.
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16720 times:
If UA wants to add capacity to GRU or maybe EZE from EWR, after B747-400/B777 the A380 may be they way to go.
GRU is slot restricted and U.S. airlines can hardly add any frequencies to that airport, unless only some seasonally, moreover, opening service to SAO other international airport, VCP from the States seems kind of a bit unlikely, at least for now.
There may not be any more frequencies for U.S. airlines to EZE, at least for now, and if they're any available there could be only used seasonally.
UA same situation applies for AA MIA-GRU, but AA with A380 is very iffy given AA current situation.
DL ATL-GRU may not need A380 service yet.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5298 posts, RR: 47 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16681 times:
May I add that there will probably have to be multiple routes that would warrant A380 service before UA or DL would order them. Can't have a fleet of 3 operating one route pair, I think the minimum order would be maybe 15, and that is pretty low in my opinion. Plus the limited airports the A380 can operate at... modifications would need to be made / some airports would not get A380 if it is not worth it to mod. I'm not saying never, and as ugly as it is I'd like to see a DL A380 but I just don't see it happening
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2307 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 16663 times:
Actually I was kind of thinking that AS would be the first U.S. carrier to introduce the A380. They could put it on SEA-ANC, for example and cut down on those 20 or whatever flights a day in the summer. Might even work on SEA-SNA to save some valuable slot allocations (so they can start SJC-SNA) if they can get the thing off of SNA's runway before crashing through the fence.
Then again, AS being a very loyal all-Boeing customer (which I thought AA was until my former second favorite airline broke my heart by buying from the other guys....) might instead opt for the 747-8I for the aforementioned routes. I'll bet the 748 would have better takeoff performance at SNA too.
qfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16526 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 9): UA and NW(DL now), has been flying 747s for decades.
I do not see US carriers flying with more frequencies than Asian carriers between US and Asia. Rather opposite.
Thats a myth that should be put to sleep.
If US carriers could attract enough travellers to fill A380s, they would be delighted to do so.
When did either carrier order their last 744? Didn't UA say when they announced the 350/787 order that 359s would be used as a 744 replacement? I suspect DL are weighing up a 77W purchase. They may already have done so as there are quite a few 77W UFOs this year. Take also into account the larger 350-1000 and likely 777X and the case for VLAs diminishes even more.
C680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16377 times:
Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 12): Everyone in Asia-Pacific has A380s now... If you want to compete in Asia-Pacific, at some point in time United is going to have to get on board with the A380
I love JL - the ability to warp time and space is impressive.
rockinflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16321 times:
I would like to think a U.S. carrier might choose the 747-8 over the A380. Just an opinion and the 747-8, at least aesthetically is a far more graceful looking aircraft. I find the A380 to be very ungainly looking. Sure its a marvel of "Bigness", but thats about it.
tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16245 times:
Quoting rockinflyer (Reply 20): Just an opinion and the 747-8, at least aesthetically is a far more graceful looking aircraft. I find the A380 to be very ungainly looking. Sure its a marvel of "Bigness", but thats about it.
Yes, I see can a Board of Directors authorising a multi-billion purchase because the plane looks nicer!!!!
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 847 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15574 times:
Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 11):
John Leahy was asked about the A380 and US carriers topic yesterday:
"There are only two operators of the (Boeing ) 747 in the U.S.: United and Northwest-Delta . And yes, those guys are in my sights, particularly United," Leahy said.
"Everyone in Asia-Pacific has A380s now... If you want to compete in Asia-Pacific, at some point in time United is going to have to get on board with the A380," he added.
Source: Reuters
The A380 is just too BIG and not practical for any US based airlines. They fly from too many US airports to overseas destinations. There just would not be enough return on an investment in the A380. Delta flies the 747-400 as they came with the merger with Northwest Airlines. When there gone, Delta's largest aircraft will be the 777, unless things change to warrant something larger. But it will NOT be a A380.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1326 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14401 times:
I think the A380-900 will be a game changer here.
When it is launched, I imagine it will receive far more orders than the A380-800 as then cargo becomes far more viable and there may even be opportunities for a combi model.
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9611 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14256 times:
Nothing illustrates the decline of the US Airlines better than their disability to order a sigle VLA since NWA did about ten years ago. While the world buys and fills A380s, all the former glorious airlines of the USA are either keeping their 744s, or fly the modest 777 and A330 like any midsized or even small carrier elsewhere. And we are talking about operators who once flew the largest VLA fleets in the world.
UA and Delta, being huge airlines, should be able to operate A380s or at least 748Is. A shame they havent ordered yet.
25 RWA380: I see the 748i is a better likely canidate than the A380 here in the US, and that is a far fetched idea at that. look UA & DL's order books, looks
26 par13del: How exactly will they increase capacity on the US side at hub airports to full the A380 on a regular basis, ask the FAA and local authorities to shut
27 na: LH, SQ, QF, EK, AF, you name it, fill A380s to New York, Miami and LA. And the US Airlines cant compete? What a disgrace for the once leading airline
28 einsteinboricua: You people seem to forget that UA is adding more 777s due to their merger with CO and still has 787s and A350s on order. Why would UA rock the boat by
29 seabosdca: If anyone orders A380s, I think it will be UA, and only for 12-15. They could use them on SYD and a few Asian routes where more frequencies are diffic
30 scbriml: The same thing that many said about AA ordering Airbus and AF buying Rollers.
31 steffenbn: I really like that he says "Northwest-Delta" and then just "United" - Northwest as fully merged into Delta (not existing) while United is now in the
32 gkirk: UA: ORD-HKG ORD-NRT SFO-NRT SFO-HKG SFO-SYD And that's about it I'd think
33 AustrianZRH: Well, they do operate multiple international hubs. They have intercontinental flights out of FRA, MUC, ZRH, VIE, BRU, and some out of DUS.
34 MoltenRock: I've said before I see United having 18 to 25 A380s on order within the next 5 years. Looks increasingly that I will be proven right. "United Contine
35 par13del: So is it your contention that these carriers came into existence because service on US carriers got so bad that local carriers had to be developed as
36 Archer: When I was at LAX in September the Singapore 380, according to Flightstats, was heading for NRT not "home". It seemed strange to me but is that true?
37 seabosdca: I don't think it's reasonable to count the SN, LX, or OS networks as part of LH. (I wouldn't claim US's hubs for UA either.) MUC and DUS are very muc
38 skipness1E: Given that the US airline business hasn't taken delivery of anything bigger than a B777-200 in recent years, no.
39 scbriml: It would be funny if this thread went the way of the "HA are cancelling their A330s" one.
40 AustrianZRH: Well, LX, OS, and SN (?) are 100%-owned subsidiaries of LH while US and UA are just *A partners. But OK, the definition of "one airline" is arguable
41 NYCFlyer: Ha, thank you for the kind words. I'm sure this subject has come up in the past, but I didn't immediately see anything. You make a good point about t
42 NYCFlyer: I agree with you on the frequency issue for business travelers. But what about lower-yielding leisure routes like NYC-MCO/FLL? Or are the economics s
43 skipness1E: I must be getting old when fuel efficient B767s become gas guzzlers. Even the B744 is now described as such, To me a gas guzzler is a B707 / DC8 / VC
44 par13del: Well revisit what used to happen, DL for example ran a number of widebodies into Florida especially Orlando when those a/c returned from TATL trips t
45 UALWN: I don't follow your logic here. I'm sure you are aware that LX is a wholly owned subsidiary of LH, and both OS and SN are about 50% owned by LH, whil
46 commavia: I have long contended that the A380 was simply too large for virtually any U.S. carriers' networks and thus, as others have pointed out already, if th
47 Newark727: Allegiant will start picking them up used for leisure routes starting 2045. The biggest problem will be making sure that Grand Junction, Colorado has
48 MoltenRock: And pray tell how is UA going to handle a near doubling of air traffic in the coming years? How many new airports has the USA built in the past 30 ye
49 travelavnut: I'm very interested in some sources for your claim it is unprofitable for the airlines using it, as you seem to be claiming. So the likes of SQ, KE,
50 commavia: The same way that United and every other U.S. carrier has handled the astronomical growth in international air traffic in the last thirty years: thro
51 UALWN: Indeed. One would imagine that buying a couple would be enough to enjoy the "prestige." But buying 90, as EK did, for prestige? Talk about an overkil
52 UALWN: And what would those be? Some of the airlines not in that list? AF? BA? OZ? CZ?
53 seabosdca: My logic is that the network planning, as far as I can tell, is independent or close to it. LX and OS, especially, are much more redundant with LH th
54 commavia: Airlines that bought the A380 based on prestige with little or no economic rationale, in my opinion: * Kingfisher * Malaysia * Skymark * Thai * Virgi
55 2travel2know2: Depending of the use, UA should be fine with only 2 or 3 A380, specifically for EWR-GRU-EWR daily all year around. There's no possible way UA could a
56 UALWN: Actually, MUC's international network is comparable to those of IAD or SFO, and vastly superior to that of DEN. How can LX's network planning be inde
57 Cubsrule: MUC's international network is the wrong comparison - its international network is huge because Germany doesn't have a big domestic network. And how m
58 UALWN: I may give you Kingfisher. That's all. Skymark doesn't seek prestige. Their business model may or may not be sound, but does not rely on prestige. As
59 UALWN: Make that intercontinental network, and then compare it to those out of IAD and SFO. None so far. They operate out of FRA. Apparently, some 748s will
60 Cubsrule: But the hubs - or at least MUC and FRA - serve the same traffic flows. ORD, IAD and SFO don't serve the same traffic flows unless you define the flow
61 CHRISBA777ER: Try Asiana, Korean, Vietnam, Thai, Skymark, Qantas, Malaysian, *Air China, China Southern, *Air Hong Kong and Singapore Airlines. * - Not formally an
62 commavia: United isn't going to buy the A380 for one route. That's the point myself and others have made - there may be a few routes in the United network wher
64 UALWN: I don't know. But a quick look at a 2010 timetable I have shows LH flights from MUC to YUL, BOS, EWR, JFK, IAD, CLT, MIA, ORD, SFO, LAX, GRU, TLV, CA
65 UALWN: Sorry, why is expressing your opinion perfectly normal while expressing my opinion is an emotional reaction and a sign of sour grapes?
66 Cubsrule: No. It's far cheaper to route all of your JNB passengers in a single 380 over FRA than in a 343 over MUC and a 343 over FRA. UA can't route all of it
67 tommyy: I would not be surprised if both DL and UA could use on NYC-TLV a A380 at least a couple of times a week
68 UALWN: But LH/LX fly to NRT from FRA, MUC and ZRH! And they fly to JNB from FRA, MUC (code-share with SA) and ZRH too. And they put an A380 on FRA-NRT and F
69 LGWflyer: I would say US Airways would snap them up! But I know they don't really need them now, but they could add CLT/PHL-Asia and PHX-Europe (try and beat BA
70 Cubsrule: How many of those airports are slot controlled?
71 jayeshrulz: Hahaha, EPIC!! Back to question, i think in USA, its always frequency over seats. This way, there is a flexibility of timings, as well as, does the j
72 BoeingGuy: What's a Roller, the 77W? Of course, ask AF what's the best airplane in their fleet and I'm pretty sure I know what they'll say. From what I've been
73 UALWN: As far as I know, only NRT is. What's your point?
74 ZKCIF: Could anyone care to explain me why airlines from one country are frequent visitors of Chapter 11 ? While airlines from many other countries tend to d
75 Cubsrule: Slots are about the only reason to use a VLA over multiple smaller ones from different hubs (as long as the hubs serve different enough traffic flows
76 UALWN: I believe he meant a Rolls-Royce engine. AF has been a GE-only airline until they recently ordered the A359, which is only available with RR engines.
77 UALWN: I understand that, but FRA is not slot restricted, as far as I know. And yet LH flies both A380s from FRA and smaller planes from MUC and ZRH to most
78 Cubsrule: If there's no capacity problem at FRA, how is that a profit-maximizing strategy for them? Let me ask it directly: does FRA have capacity constraints
79 Stitch: Because Korea and Singapore have only one major international gateway (Seoul and Singapore, respectively) and Germany has only one and a half (Frankf
80 T5towbar: I was thinking about the other costs involved. How many US airports are 380 ready? The only airport in the Tri-State area that is 380 ready is JFK. T
81 ck8msp: *IF* a US based carrier were to add the the A380 in the future is there any guarantee that they would even be new builds? Why would they not try picki
82 superjeff: Quoting RWA380 (Reply 26): as they were too much bird for the US airlines, same hing now with the A380. LH, SQ, QF, EK, AF, you name it, fill A380s t
83 delta2ual: I'm sure most flight attendants would like young and attractive passengers as well!
84 ZKCIF: Let us take a different look: don't US companies have TOO MANY hubs? Check the airlines that had too many hubs in Europe: Alitalia or SAS and the iss
85 Cubsrule: We've been told above that LH has 5 hubs in an area much smaller than the continental United States. Does LH have too many hubs? I think the key dist
86 seabosdca: Perhaps, but the problem is not too many big international hubs. If there is a problem, it's the smaller domestic hubs, which are slowly shrinking. T
87 ZKCIF: I think this way: Germans living in Stuttgart, Berlin or Nurnberg see it as a natural thing that international flights do not leave from the airport n
88 Cubsrule: Which hubs with more than 2 intercontinental flights a day by the hub carrier do you think ought to be shut? What exactly does the 380 have to do wit
89 ZKCIF: Sincerely, I do not know. I have never been to Your country, but just the ratio of population and hubs is definitely not good. Having a bigger plane
90 ukoverlander: Lufthansa flies the A340-600 from Munich to San Francisco. IMO that's a lot of aircraft for a 'secondary' hub. Add to that LAX, Johannesburg, Sao Pao
91 Delta763: I don't think the use of large expensive planes is necessarily an indicator of how competitive or "great" an airline is. The US airline business is j
92 cmf: The dirty little secret about US airlines focus on frequency is that there are precious few long haul city pairs connected. It is often said business
93 Stitch: Building on Cubsrule's post, the land mass of the United Staes of America is roughly the same as the land mass of Europe, including the UK and Iceland
94 Cubsrule: It is a poor measure, unless you think EK (1 hub for ~3 million population) should shut down.
95 ZKCIF: Made my day Seriously, these guys work on connections. I'll try to simplify my understanding of the situation: US carriers have a huge advantage: by
96 Cubsrule: Absolutely, but the example hints at a broader point: all hubs are not created equal. BA's hub in London - one of the 5 or 10 most important cities i
97 cmf: Do they? Though 2 x 767 (or should that be 787 now) require a lot more resources.
98 Delta763: Don't they? Sure it's more expensive to fly two, but you're more likely to fill them if you can offer schedules that better meet passenger needs.[Edi
99 Stitch: The key here is that those two daily frequencies are often not year round, but instead are seasonal. So it's not a case of US flagged carriers being
100 rdh3e: This makes me laugh. Thanks for that gem. Pan Am had plenty of VLA's (for their time) look where that got them. It's not the size of an aircraft that
101 commavia: I strongly disagree. Look at the schedule of flights between the U.S. and Europe today versus 1975 (pre-deregulation, and pre-767/ETOPS). Back then,
102 par13del: The companies, maybe, the country, I don't think so. How would you get cities who presently have hub capable airports to shut down their internationa
103 cmf: To my knowledge not really. Thus I asked you, since you say they do. Sometimes you can. Sometimes you move them away from the time they want. The pro
104 Delta763: Kinda hard to do when you're competing with 3 or 4 other airlines. Sure if you're a national carrier and the only game in town, you might be able to,
105 par13del: So would the reverse not also work for the US and assist in the local aviation market, if the US can restrict the Europeans to a like number of airpo
106 cmf: Don't understand what you're questioning. If you use two planes instead of one there is a good chance one of them will have a less attractive time. I
107 avek00: Based on prior experience, we'd certainly hear at least some suggestion that the airline would order the Flying Forehead from the CO...um, United CEO
108 UALWN: Airfield? Not really. Gates? I don't know. But, again, there are no slots to be bought/sold. FRA is the financial capital of Germany, but MUC is its
109 Cubsrule: So it's acceptable for LH to carry passengers non-stop to business-heavy cities from FRA, ZRH and MUC but not acceptable for UA to carry passengers n
110 UALWN: I thought the point was that LH does that, while managing to fill A380s out of FRA...
111 Cubsrule: But who cares? You buy the largest airplane you can profitably fill (within other constraints like fleet size). Why does the fact that that is the 38
112 UALWN: It doesn't. All I'm saying is that the fact that UA, say, has many hubs doesn't necessarily mean that UA cannot use VLAs profitably: LH has many hubs
113 MoltenRock: And yet we are already seeing an "upgauging" in narrowbody aircraft away from the A319 to the A320, and from the A320 to the A321 / 737 to 738 and 73
114 Cubsrule: No, but the situations are not completely analogous. LH can shift passengers from ZRH and MUC to FRA to fill 380s ex-FRA without too much inconvenien
115 UALWN: We keep going around in circles. LH does not do that: they keep flying a substantial long-haul schedule from MUC and ZRH, and yet manage to fill A380
116 par13del: Government development in Europe created ground transportation for domestic travel, in the US they used airports, so open skies which is for airports
117 Cubsrule: You are talking about flights, I am talking about seats. What 380 routes does LH fly from MUC/ZRH, and what equipment do they use?
118 Stitch: Yes, but they're pulling from a population of some 90 million people (~82 million in Germany and ~8 million in Switzerland) into those three hubs. Th
119 UALWN: I don't understand what you mean. If an European airline can fly from airport E in Europe to airport A in America, surely an American carrier can do
120 UALWN: All of them, I think. With A346/343 from MUC and A343/333 from ZRH.
121 UALWN: I never said that. The only thing I'm saying is that stating "UA has multiple hubs, hence no need for a VLA" is not enough. WN doesn't not fly interc
122 Cubsrule: Nope. I don't know LH's ops that well, but I know they do not fly MUCJNB.
123 UALWN: SA flies MUC-JNB and LH code shares. LX does fly to JNB from ZRH.
124 davescj: There is another consideration to be given to the A380s use of a small number of markets. Anytime you have to connect, you're going to go via a hub in
125 UALWN: Well, FRA has weather issues too. And yet...
126 Cubsrule: You are changing the criteria on me. Which matters?
127 davescj: But you can re-route via MUC or ZRH if they had too. But how many flights a day is LH going to send to any single market with the A380? And if the tr
128 UALWN: Well, most people flying JFK-FRA connect to elsewhere in Europe, Asia, Africa... The problem is the same. I'm not changing anything, just answering y
129 davescj: If the problem is in JFK, I'd agree if that was the origin. If the problem is in FRA or they are staring at another city, the problem isn't the same.
130 UALWN: I don't understand the logic, but anyway. Actually, if FRA has issues, it is likely that MUC and ZRH will have them too...
131 Cubsrule: Let me spell it out for you: LH has this advantage: when it decides to put a VLA on, say, FRA-NRT, it can adjust capacity ex-ZRH and MUC to force con
132 staralliance85: It will be very unlikely that a US airliner will have the A380. If so it would be decades before they contemplate about it. 1. Federal Government will
133 UALWN: Nice theory. Now let me spell out the facts for you: so far LH has not "adjusted" (by which I guess you mean "reduced") capacity from MUC or ZRH to a
134 Cubsrule: Then I assume they were running 100 percent loads on all 380 destinations with hundreds of passengers clamoring to fly LH and unable to get a seat? S
135 davescj: But how many LH/LX destinations have A380? To give an example, I picked a random date in Jan for FRA-NRT. The only A380 on Orbitz was on ANA. From MU
136 UALWN: Several. Checking a random date in June 2012 I see the following: LX does fly to NRT from ZRH; LH does fly to NRT from MUC, NH does too; both NH and
137 brilondon: That is not a myth, that is reality. It is all about the frequency. Look at NYC-LHR for example. The world economy is taking care of this right now,
138 par13del: Simple answer, slots and curfews on the European side whichdo not exist in the US. Example the State of Florida, 4 major airports can offer TATL serv
139 davescj: Cool. I was looking in Jan, and on Orbitz (which isn't always the greatest source of information). But on the same day, DL alone, has flights to NRT
140 UALWN: Slots exist in LHR and where else in Europe? As for curfews, are they relevant? Who wants to land at FRA between midnight and 5 am? Who does land at
141 davescj: But I think the Biz models that both are dealing with are a fair comparison. If we want to consider why the US carriers won't buy the A380, we have t
142 UALWN: Are you sure about that? Many of the A380 destinations flown by European airlines are in the USA, so those are a draw. Then you have JNB, BKK and SIN
143 Cubsrule: The same reason WN operates the 73G and not the 738: if you can't reliably fill the seats, the larger airplane, even with similar trip costs, isn't n
144 par13del: Why not, that is the market that DL serves and operates in, in time they may be able to operate A380 flights from each of those hubs, you never know,
145 UALWN: Yes, but you are aware that FR only flies 738s, Lion Air only flies 739s, etc. Actually, so far 3654 738s have been ordered, to be compared to 1470 7
146 davescj: If the A380 does in fact cost the same as the 744 to operate on a flight, why would DL want an A380 if they don't want a 744? The profit margin would
147 cmf: And my point is that from most of them you can only fly to a couple of European destinations so you still need a transfer. In my experience this is f
148 Stitch: In a single-class configuration, the 737-800 would enjoy a lower CASM than the 737-700. However, many two-class operators find that the 73G and 738 ha
149 Viscount724: I totally agree. All major European carriers carry many thousands of connecting passengers every day. For carriers like KL and LX, connecting passeng
150 commavia: Nothing to "rationalize." You have your opinion, I have mine. Time will tell. Right, but my point is that 30-40 years ago, these same itineraries wou
151 par13del: No, but all the smaller communities around can use trains to get to central hubs thus funnelling more traffic onto larger a/c. No such capability exi
152 cmf: Depends on how you define major. And, as I have stated multiple times, most cities have only a couple of non-stops. Does no good when you're not goin
153 par13del: Ok, lets say we agree on this, then what? How exactly does DL, AA, UA accomplish this feat? We have spent time discussing why things are the way they
154 commavia: And as I have stated multiple times, most cities 30-40 years ago got zero nonstops, and often required multiple connections. Today, just about any po
155 cmf: Doesn't change anything. People living north of FLL will do almost anything to avoid going to MIA. Much rather take a connecting flight out of FLL. I
156 par13del: So lets apply to AA in Florida, they fly to TPA and MCO for pax from the Americas, so that network exist for reasons other than an A380 across the po
157 DeltaMD90: Geez there are a lot of armchair CEOs here. I think UA or DL will get A380s the day they believe A380s are viable for their route network. The fact th
158 cmf: It is about getting more traffic to US airlines thus if you take the BA flight it failed. You will pretty much fly over NYC anyway so that isn't an i
159 davescj: This is what it ultimately comes down to. Not about a good/bad aircraft, it is about economics. If either thought they could fill 50 A380s profitably
160 par13del: So a Floridian would prefer to fly to NYC rather than getting on BA or DL from MIA, or are you saying that Americans should be nationalistic and refu
161 brilondon: You can fly to LHR from many U.S. cities and make one connection to go any where in the world. In the U.S. the distances are quite a bit different th
162 Cubsrule: Again, if you can fill the planes - as FR and Lion Air apparently can - the larger airplane is the right choice. But if you aren't consistently filli
163 cmf: Why do you continue with that nationalistic nonsense? This thread is about US airlines. Thus why we need to get passengers on US airlines or it is a
164 UALWN: Because an A380 can carry about 25% more passengers for the same total trip cost? And, as far as I know, DL does operate 744s. I don't know. But if U
165 YTZ: The distances involved are just not the same. In Europe, it's not uncommon to travel by train or car to access an international airport. And to the e
166 YTZ: cmf, Your argument for larger hubs to facilitate more connections is a non-sequitur. There is nothing stopping any US airline from ramping up service
167 Cubsrule: I'd love to see your numbers that show identical trip costs.
168 cmf: I think they are largely doing it because: a) They are stuck with equipment forcing them to continue operating like this. As it becomes time to repla
169 UALWN: Then maybe you should be running a US airline, since the ROI of the US legacy carriers since 1990 has actually been negative... Well, I learned long
170 avek00: Indeed. North American carriers (in this regard, AC is in the same boat with legacies south of the border) would be foolish to get into a race to the
171 Cubsrule: Agreed. I'm just not convinced that a 380 with, say 250 or 300 seats filled, is really cheaper to operate than a 744 with 250 or 300 seats filled.
172 UALWN: I don't think so either. But I guess the goal wouldn't be to operate the A380 with a 50-60% load factor...
173 Stitch: An analysis performed on 22 March 2001 by Geoffrey Buescher implied that a 747-400 using Boeing's 413-seat OEM configuration could break-even at 290
174 YTZ: That's true. But then why all this debate about the A380 and how it fits into the model of US airlines? There's 2 787s in service. We can only talk a
175 Cubsrule: Didn't the 388 - like every other new aircraft - miss its performance targets? Obviously, it was not in service in 2001.
176 YTZ: Thing is, if you're only going to be able to get 250-300 pax, why would you be flying an A380 or 744 anyway? Why not a 777/787/A350? During peak seas
177 Stitch: It missed some performance targets (like weight), but exceeded others (like aerodynamics), with the net result being the plane as a whole was at or a
178 davescj: For now.....I think the 744s will be gone as soon as DL can get a 777 on the route (but that's a guess). Dave
179 AirlineCritic: Personally, I now find A380 to be the prettiest aircraft out of those that are currently flying. I used to think of 747s this way, but the A380 wing
180 DeltaMD90: I think it would be way better if the cockpit was on the second floor and it had a big nose, not a big forehead. I want to like it, but it just doesn
181 brilondon: That is the reason for airline alliances, so that each airline did not have to fly to every small airport but feed it's partner the traffic. I though
182 UALWN: No. I'm just saying that for the last 20+ years, the USA airliners have not been a model to emulate. But capacity depends on what all airlines on one
183 davescj: I think it is a matter of time before they are gone. DL has slowly "right sized" the fleet. That began by eliminating the DC-9s. DL has kept the 744
184 par13del: Well a number like DL, AA, B6 have been looking to increase their international flying because they are more profitable, unfortunately, DL has pulled
185 MoltenRock: Exactly. It's why I laugh when the usual suspects crow about how "smart" US airlines are being by not buying the A380, and claiming by flying a small
186 cmf: Because the question is about what to do when it is time to replace current aircrafts. Big part of the problem, isn't it? Probably not. Could they fi
187 brilondon: This is precisely the reason the A380 would most likely never have any U.S. based airline paint on it for a long time if ever.
188 UALWN: TPA-JFK-LHR is 4456 mi long, while TPA-MIA-LHR is 4629 mi. Why would you choose to connect through MIA?
189 cmf: They believe A380 is bad. Not on facts, because it isn't Boeing.
190 par13del: It is not, but it is offering service from an airport close by, so it is an option for Floridians travelling acros the pond, their service competes w
191 cmf: None of the above. Business model is the reason. And that is a business model that has has multiple shortcomings because there isn't enough demand to
192 par13del: Much easier and quicker to get to MIA versus JFK, don't even have to fly, even MCO from TPA depending on route and time of day is a bit over an hours
193 YTZ: Nobody's trying to be smart. And the ones who suggest that US travellers are extremely price sensitive are usually the same crowd that says no airlin
194 cmf: Now you're getting a bit too silly in your argumentation. Tampa to MIA is 4+ hours driving and NYC is pretty much on the MIA-LON typical flight path.
196 MoltenRock: Sorry Chuck, but you've got it backwards. The very same posters argue that US flyers are "cheap" and "don't care" about anything other than the $5 or
197 cmf: That is the most common version I see here.
198 seabosdca: That's hardly the huge contradiction you make out. US customers book on two things: price and schedule. Speaking broadly, they will NOT pay $10 more
199 AirlineCritic: I think you are comparing a mental image to dollars here. Per http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ and using list prices, a B777 costs around 250
200 davescj: To avoid JFK. But another issue with MIA is that it is a great candidate for connections to Latin America. Also, if yoiu speak Spanish, you may have
201 cmf: Exactly. And there is nothing stopping US airlines from developing a similar model. I do not have the statistics to prove it but I bet most passenger
202 brilondon: I have to ask what are you going on about. I believe DL has more than one flight to Europe. I don't understand what you mean when you say it is a non
203 Stitch: That view does seem to be changing, based on the revenue UA is reporting from Economy Plus sales and with other carriers now charging for Exit Row se
204 par13del: Here's a question, why are US airlines equally against Boeing's premium long haul a/c 777W at the same time that they are against Airbus premium long
205 cmf: brilondon, It is about the A380 and the changes to the business model that are required for it to work. Limiting yourself to the example used, flight
206 YTZ: This yields a more broader question. We're talking a lot about the A380 here. Yet only AA has ordered the 77W out of the US majors. And that order wa
207 UALWN: Why? The AA terminal in JFK is great! But the poster was travelling to London, not to Latin America. If the US airlines can't fill a 77W profitably,
208 Cubsrule: Do WN, B6, U2 and FR "have a problem?" But JFK is a delay-prone mess.
209 UALWN: Do they fly intercontinental routes? As far as I know, their business model is "slightly" different from that of UA, DL, AA, US. Nobody is suggesting
210 aircanada014: You do realize UA shows interest in A380, Airbus believe UA will place an order soon if all goes well. Airbus convince UA A380 fits in UA route.
211 Cubsrule: Well, UA, DL AA and US have a different business model from, for instance, EK, do they not?
212 UALWN: Slightly different, this time without quotation marks. But pretty similar to that of LH, BA, AF. And it's not like LH, BA and AF have a few token air
213 Cubsrule: Pretty similar, absolutely. And they operate pretty similar fleets. Why does that mean that they need the 380? You argue by assertion that they are "
214 UALWN: They do not. I thought now we were arguing about 77W+, no longer A380. I stated that if the US airlines can't operate profitably a 77W there's someth
215 Cubsrule: To be fair, UA has options for 50 350s, which could become 35Js. I think - and you are free to disagree - that the future is far more important than
216 UALWN: UA has 25 A359s in order plus 25 options. They have stated that they want A359s and not 35Js, but I guess they could change their mind. Maybe. But in
217 Cubsrule: Maybe so, but the 77E likely has a lower CASM than both, and the 77L adds a bunch of range without much impact on CASM.
218 cmf: Both were highly efficient planes. Not by today's standard but that is a different thing. You need to understand the market at the time something was
219 UALWN: You're probably right, but I was talking about the 767s. Between UA, DL and AA they still operate 227 767s (to be compared with 139 777s).
220 Cubsrule: Nor did I say it was. But I'll stand by my assessment that US airlines are better off for not having operated it (the 340 is not unique in this regar
221 UALWN: I don't know. Was buying A343s a bad idea when oil was under $40?
222 Cubsrule: I think so. The 777 was the same airplane, but more efficient. What's the analog for the 767?
223 cmf: From the late 80's to late 90's the A340 was the best solution for many missions. Not a bad run. As great as the 777 is (was) it was essentially on p
224 Cubsrule: How are the 77L and the 343 "on par?"
225 Stitch: I believe the comparison was between the 777-200ER and A340-300 and they did line-up well. (All figures from latest Airbus and Boeing APACs) Range at
226 UALWN: The A330? They aren't. The A343 entered into service in 1993, while the 77L did it in 2006. The A340 comparable to the 77L is the A345, which entered
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1381 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2008, 573 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1146 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2004 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2091 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1326 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9611 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
