olddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13446 times:
I was curious to know would UA or DL consider the A380 for specific high density routes like NYC-TLV, HNL-TYO, SEL-NYC, NYC-LON, NYC-TYO? NYC/SFO/WAS-FRA or MIA-SAO, MAD-MIA? domestically: SFO/LAX-ORD/IAH/WAS, LAS-ATL, DEN-WAS, LAX-ATL, MSP-CHI, CHI-NYC?... Would these routes not do well with a a few A380's? SFO-ORD 13 n/s flights, ATL-LAX 10 n/s flights...just curious... This would free-up the equipment for a new station, additional frequency elsewhere, or continue to consolidate their fleet in other areas... Just a thought. Please don't blast me if you think it's a stupid question.
vctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13426 times:
I don't believe so. They may look at some 748s if the price is right but I can't see either with A380s. Way too much airplane for either's route structure.
I actually agree, but if you could cut SFO-ORD from 13 flights to 8-9 with a few 380's, that would free-up ground-crew, airport personnel, gates, landing fees. LESS CONGESTION etc. trying to play devil's advocate here
Boeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 320 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13314 times:
No, this is not going to happen. For many reasons
United: UA will not take A380's because they already have replacements lined up to take care of the 747-400 replacement. The A350s and B787s will take care of their 747-400 routes.
Delta: DL won't take any new widebody aircraft for awhile. Right now all of their focus are getting narrowbody replacements into their fleet. In the future (10-15 years they may look at them, but not right now)
Bottom line: there is very little demand for the US carriers to take A380's. The only reason why NW and UA bought them back in the 80s/90s was for the range they provided, since the 777 wasn't around yet.
Absolutely not!!! Especially on competitive routes. Business travelers like frequency. Cancel three A320s and put in an A380 would be death for that airline on that particular route.
There was some possibility that the old-NW could have ordered say 5 of them. DTW-AMS and DTW-NRT-MNL wwould have been the only routes though.
Passengers want frequency. The American public and business have come accustom to this and it will not change till all major airports are slot restricted.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13056 times:
Quoting vctony (Reply 1): I don't believe so. They may look at some 748s if the price is right but I can't see either with A380s. Way too much airplane for either's route structure.
I see DL ordering these, but not for another 10 or 15 years. That's the thing, the 747 routes right now are usually full, and I don't think the 77L could take over the amount.
Quoting Boeing773ER (Reply 3): DL won't take any new widebody aircraft for awhile. Right now all of their focus are getting narrowbody replacements into their fleet. In the future (10-15 years they may look at them, but not right now)
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12950 times:
Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 2):
I actually agree, but if you could cut SFO-ORD from 13 flights to 8-9 with a few 380's, that would free-up ground-crew, airport personnel, gates, landing fees. LESS CONGESTION etc. trying to play devil's advocate here
UA could do that already, and to some point used to route widebodies on domestic routes. In the 1990s, DC10s and 747-200s were flying domestic hub to hub routes. Eventually the DC10s were replaced with 14 2-class 767-300s and 6 2-class 777s. They were used for Hawaii and hub to hub. However UA is shifting towards smaller airplanes for domestic routes.
One reason why we are less likely to see widebodies for domestic routes is that the 737NG and A320 are so efficient and becoming more efficient with new derivatives. The 767-300 2-class has 244 seats versus 173 for the 737-900ER. When looking at the numbers, the 737-900 actually beats the 767 on a CASM basis on domestic routes. If UA had the A321, it would beat the 767 as well. That's why 767s are being converted to long haul use.
I don't know what the numbers on an A380 would be as I am not a PianoX user, but I somewhat doubt it would look that good compared to the narrowbodies on routes under 2,000 miles. The A320 and 737NG are the most popular aircraft because for the bulk of markets, actually are the most efficient because of their lightweight design compared to the larger widebodies. When 777s, 747s, A340s, and A380s are used on short haul markets, their numbers do not come out that well. Cargo on domestic routes can easily be carried on revenue flights and is very low yielding (outside of express cargo and Alaska).
In the US widebodies aren't needed on domestic routes to reduce congestion as much as they are in other markets because slots aren't heavily restricted at most airports. Passengers prefer frequency and when slots get constrained, regional routes are more likely to be sacrificed.
Another reason is 5pm departures between NYC and CHI or LAX and SFO could fill a widebody, but what is the airline going to do with it the rest of the day? There's no need for a widebody on a 10am or 9pm departure. A380s kill flexibility. Airlines in the US run on razor tight margins, so flexibility is essential. They manage peak departure times with fares to push passengers into less desirable times rather than raise capacity during peak rush hours.
It is a legitimate question. I think A380s at DL and UA has been well covered in the past, but I don't think anyone has proposed domestic use for widebodies in a thread.
[Edited 2012-06-17 17:29:40]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12858 times:
Quoting as739x (Reply 6):
Passengers want frequency. The American public and business have come accustom to this and it will not change till all major airports are slot restricted.
If there was such a need for this sort of service, airlines in the US would have been operating the 747-400D years ago. I think the largest dedicated domestic widebody (not a international widebody operating on a domestic leg) in the US in recent years was Delta's 767-400ERs (They did operate them to some cities in South America, but they were predominantly domestic a/c.) which seated 287 passengers. Delta was flying them on their busiest routes like ATL-LAX, ATL-LAS, ATL-FLL, ATL-MCO, ATL-HNL (After getting the crew rest matter settled; prior to that, they operated ATL-LAX-HNL.), ATL-SFO, ATL-MIA, ATL-TPA, and ATL-LGA (I'm sure I missed some routes.).
Completely agree. Between frequency's, etc there this is no reason for 747's and A380's operating multiple flights between hubs.
Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 10): But the 787 and a350 will also have domestic routes too, IAH-SFO etc...
They will find their fit on certain flights (times). But the question of the A380, it won't happen. And with the 787/A350, I think they'll just fill in where 767's are these days. The A350 will be used internationally mainly. ex UA replacing 747's with them.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
sharktail From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 21 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 months 6 days ago) and read 12151 times:
I don't think they will order them in the next 5 years. But if other airlines start competing with these planes on the trunk routes for UA and DL which causes a significant cost and revenue advantage they will have to reconsider. As long as no Japanese airline orders it, I think UA and DL will wait. By 2020 though, they may be forced to reconsider.
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9176 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 12017 times:
Quoting Boeing773ER (Reply 3): Bottom line: there is very little demand for the US carriers to take A380's. The only reason why NW and UA bought them back in the 80s/90s was for the range they provided, since the 777 wasn't around yet.
When did NW and/or UA order A380s in the 80s/90s?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
Actually, DL almost ordered 747-400s instead of MD-11s, but they could be three of the trijets for the price of two 747s.
It's interesting to think how much different DL's fleet makeup might be if they had kept the original 747s in the 70s and kept them long enough to use them on the original ATL-LGW and ATL-FRA routes.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
boilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11003 times:
This again? How many times are people going to bring this up?
First, the logistical issues and financial issues. Why would either of the world's largest airlines operate an A380 when they have 7 hubs to serve? Business fliers like frequency, but they like nonstop even more. Sure, you can fill up an A380 by routing all the passengers through ORD or IAH, but that won't make nearly as much money as flying those passengers directly from LAX, SFO, DEN, IAH, ORD, EWR, IAD or even CLE.
Bottom line, UA can have an A380 85% full of junk S and T fares, or they can have an A350 90% full of W fares. They like making money, and an A380 doesn't get them there.
Second, UA publicly stated they only want to operate 2 widebody types. They have 50 widebodies on order and 50 more options. With a small top-off order, that's enough to replace every 747, 767, and 777 in the fleet.
Finally, DL says they want to limit capital expenditures in the next couple of years to focus on debt reduction. They deferred deliveries of the 787s and are buying used MD90s. Does that sound like an airline that wants to spend a couple billion on a fleet of A380s?
Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 10):
But the 787 and a350 will also have domestic routes too, IAH-SFO etc...
Except for repositioning flights (and some training flights in the beginning), the 787 and A350 will not fly scheduled domestic routes. All the ghetto 767s are being pulled from domestic flights and refitted for international use, leaving just a couple of domestic-configured 777s that will likely be retired soon.
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 754 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9207 times:
Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 2): I actually agree, but if you could cut SFO-ORD from 13 flights to 8-9 with a few 380's, that would free-up ground-crew, airport personnel, gates, landing fees. LESS CONGESTION etc. trying to play devil's advocate here
It would not happen. As discussed on here many times before, people prefer convenience and frequency. The A380 will do both, be inconvenient (for connections making longer connecting times because of less frequency) and will reduce frequency that people want.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 7): I see DL ordering these, but not for another 10 or 15 years. That's the thing, the 747 routes right now are usually full, and I don't think the 77L could take over the amount.
They could order B748i, A350, B77W or B77X. It does not necessarily have to be an A380. 10-15 years is a long time, by then we'll have a few more wing cracks and blown engines, and even the A380 will be considered outdated....
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6140 posts, RR: 25 Reply 21, posted (11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9013 times:
Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter): domestically: SFO/LAX-ORD/IAH/WAS, LAS-ATL, DEN-WAS, LAX-ATL, MSP-CHI, CHI-NYC?... Would these routes not do well with a a few A380's? SFO-ORD 13 n/s flights, ATL-LAX 10 n/s flights...just curious...
Nobody, including Airbus, is promoting the A380 for relatively short flights like those - 1,700-1,800 nm max. You need at least 3,000 nm before the A380 starts to make economic sense.
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8823 times:
Quoting boilerla (Reply 18): This again? How many times are people going to bring this up?
First, the logistical issues and financial issues. Why would either of the world's largest airlines operate an A380 when they have 7 hubs to serve? Business fliers like frequency, but they like nonstop even more. Sure, you can fill up an A380 by routing all the passengers through ORD or IAH, but that won't make nearly as much money as flying those passengers directly from LAX, SFO, DEN, IAH, ORD, EWR, IAD or even CLE.
Bottom line, UA can have an A380 85% full of junk S and T fares, or they can have an A350 90% full of W fares. They like making money, and an A380 doesn't get them there.
Second, UA publicly stated they only want to operate 2 widebody types. They have 50 widebodies on order and 50 more options. With a small top-off order, that's enough to replace every 747, 767, and 777 in the fleet.
Finally, DL says they want to limit capital expenditures in the next couple of years to focus on debt reduction. They deferred deliveries of the 787s and are buying used MD90s. Does that sound like an airline that wants to spend a couple billion on a fleet of A380s?
Geez, calm down. The OP brought another topic on hand: use of A380s domestically. While UA and DL will not be ordering any more widebodies in the near future, we're just speculating on the next decade and whether they might pick up a couple if conditions arise. DL is paying down debt. I don't know but that sounds like an airline that's getting ready for a more aggressive strategy in the long run. it's like saving up for a dream vacation: it's not gonna be something from one day to the next, but I think there might be something going on up there for the next decade.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2159 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8734 times:
Quoting srbmod (Reply 9): were predominantly domestic a/c.) which seated 287 passengers. Delta was flying them on their busiest routes like ATL-LAX, ATL-LAS, ATL-FLL, ATL-MCO, ATL-HNL (After getting the crew rest matter settled; prior to that, they operated ATL-LAX-HNL.), ATL-SFO, ATL-MIA, ATL-TPA, and ATL-LGA (I'm sure I missed some routes.).
I have had DL 764's SLC-SFO-HNL-SLC, and LAX-HNL-LAX, great F at the time they were really new to the fleet and it was the first time I had played video games on an aircraft with the IFE.
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
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (11 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8550 times:
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 20): Out of interest if an American carrier was going to send one anywhere it would be across the Pacific ?
Pretty much thats a given. The only routes you would see UA send a 380 over the atlantic would be into FRA but lets not kid ourself there is no way UA or for that matter DL will get the 380. Too muach aircraft for airlines with too many large hubs. Just not going to happen IMHO. At best we might see a 748i down the road, but thats a pipe dream in itself unless Boeing practically gives them away.
I bet you are drooling at the thought of when BA starts rolling them out. Certainly will be one of the better colour schemes out there.
25 bmacleod: With the UK mired in recession with no recovery on immediate horizon, it'll be interesting to see how BA will be able to pay for their A380s, let alo
26 Chicagoflight: I was a flight attendant for United from 1997 to 2002 and I remember working many widebody domestic flights. Back in the day we (United) used to fly D
27 mikey72: Well only in as much as it will assist with the bottom line of the airline etc Now on the other hand......I would have been drooling over a 748i in B
28 canyonblue17: I'm thinking WN could use a few domestically. Would luv to see 750 seats and open seating. "Now boarding Group Q 1 to 30 please."
29 PW100: Interestingly, BA doesn't seem to have (m)any problems getting finance in place for their 77W. Many even consider another order beyond the currently
30 mikey72: Ring-fencing. Blimey, they've only got a handful coming ! Are you familiar with BA's route network ? Any airline that can make a profit these days wi
31 zeke: The public needs to learn that this business model maybe nice for the consumer, it is not good for airlines. One of the many reasons why many carrier
32 FlyASAGuy2005: Hit most of them. Only one I don't see is ATL-SLC and SLC-KOA. PBI would see a 764 rotation during the summer months along with SJU. DL's first inter
34 mayor: As originally configured, the 762s had 22F, but it was very cramped for F, so they removed a row and 16F was much better.
35 strfyr51: I stated all of this some months ago that the A380 was not then and NEVER would be suitable for UAL. I can't speak for Delta but I can SEE Boeing's Of
36 dfambro: It's not the job of the consumer to worry about the airline's business model. If, for example, UA were to roll their BOS-SFO morning departures, now
37 ckfred: Perhaps not slot restricted, but when adding more frequencies with narrowbodies just won't make sense. If you think about the days of regulation, AA,
38 mayor: I think they should. The average consumer wants to have 30+ flights a day to their favorite destination, just for their convenience, without realizin
39 EPA001: So true, so true. And if are talking A380's, what kind of frequency would really "suffer" if UA, or any other US airline, was to buy an A380. Then ag
40 dfambro: Consumers want a lot of things that they don't get. A business's job is to figure out a business model that works while maximizing satisfaction of co
41 Roseflyer: I’d take a look at this article before making sweeping statements like that : http://www.oliverwyman.com/pdf_files...2011_Airline_Economic_Analysis
42 YULWinterSkies: In short, technically speaking, to literally answer your thread title, if they want to order them, yes Airbus will accept their order and build them!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Nov 2011, 246 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
