AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5341 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 67172 times:
Well, as much as I'd like it to be UA or DL (though I'd prefer a 748 order!), I suspect that it's not a US-based customer.
More for Emirates? Gee, I hope not.
Chinese?
india1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 67115 times:
With the EU-China spat dissipating - with announcements for 320 & 330 orders since - and with JL being recently back from that country, is there anything we can deduce?
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 66666 times:
Since it's supposed to be "significant," we can assume it will not be a start-up or a smaller airline.
Of course it will not be Philippine Airlines, since they could not serve the US with it.
Maybe they are calling it significant because of the customer, not the number of airframes, which is intriguing.
If it's in regard of airframes, my money is on these three:
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 66544 times:
Depends what 'significant' means. Is it significant due to the number of aircraft ordered or due to the airline. If it is a new airline it could be thought significant to airbus.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 66546 times:
Like others I hope its NOT Emirates.
I could think of, in no particular order:
Cathay
ANA
Turkish
Delta
United
BA
Etihad
Qatar
TAM (very remote chance)
China Airlines (very remote chance)
Air China or another major Chinese operator
or someone totally different
As for Garuda, maybe they could order 4, but that wouldnt be a significant order. "Significant" sounds like 10 or more, or a smaller order of an influential carrier not operating the A380 so far and bound to order more (CX, DL).
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1327 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 66450 times:
I've got a feeling BA may top up their order.. they have a lot of 744s to replace, which the 777X and A350 cannot cover in their entirety...
However, I hope it will be CX.. They have a lot of competition with A380s in service or arriving: Singapore Airlines, Korean Air, Asiana, China Southern, Malaysia Airlines, Thai...
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
worldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 66311 times:
Quoting spantax (Reply 6): No room for speculations. I know for sure that it is .... Ryanair (999 PAX configuration).
possibly the new "999 standing-active-full-flex" config! with personal energy-producing generators king of IFE where inflight mandatory competitions will be offered and the best ECO passsengers will be awarded lotery tickets/beverage discounts.. with trumpets!
airlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 66260 times:
To quote
"The French and the British are certainly happy that PAL is giving them a big chunk of the business via the acquisition of Airbus aircraft that include A330s, A320s, A340s, A319s, as well as A350s and A380s"
- The Philippine Star BUSINESS section Spy Bits by Babe G. Romualdez
......this can be that "order" remember Philippine Airlines got 36 more orders to go....
"The French and the British are certainly happy that PAL is giving them a big chunk of the business via the acquisition of Airbus aircraft that include A330s, A320s, A340s, A319s, as well as A350s and A380s"
- The Philippine Star BUSINESS section Spy Bits by Babe G. Romualdez
......this can be that "order" remember Philippine Airlines got 36 more orders to go....
maybe 6 frames for Manilla-North Amecrica ops? would be another another nice one, and that would make my first dream even more likely.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, RR: 50 Reply 24, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 65812 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2): More for Emirates? Gee, I hope not.
Quoting na (Reply 16): Like others I hope its NOT Emirates.
Why not? They've already said they will need another 30. But, it would be unlike them to issue an MOU/LOI first. I also don't see them topping up before the Dubai Air Show next November.
Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 22): ......this can be that "order" remember Philippine Airlines got 36 more orders to go....
Well, today they certainly haven't ordered either the A350 or A380. Then again, how reliable is the source? If they did order a bunch of A350s and A380s that would certainly upset some here who assumed the rest of the order was a slam-dunk for Boeing.
I'll be very surprised if it isn't an Asian carrier.
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 25, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 68063 times:
Why would the British be happy?
Quoting worldrider (Reply 23): maybe 6 frames for Manilla-North Amecrica ops? would be another another nice one, and that would make my first dream even more likely.
Under their current restrictions that would leave them with MEX, YVR, YUL and YYZ as possible destinations, since they are not allowed to change aircraft on their current US routes. I seriously doubt that they can persuade the FAA recategorizing them with an A380 order...
worldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 68895 times:
Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 25):
Under their current restrictions that would leave them with MEX, YVR, YUL and YYZ as possible destinations, since they are not allowed to change aircraft on their current US routes. I seriously doubt that they can persuade the FAA recategorizing them with an A380 order...
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 69063 times:
Quoting AF185 (Reply 9): DL! They're on a roll this week
Quoting KL911 (Reply 10): DL and VS ? Bombarding LHR with A380's .
You guys can for certanly take DL off the list. At least for as long as the current managment team is running the show. Yesterday during DL investor day conference R. Anderson mentioned several times that the A380 will not provide a reasonable ROI for DL over a 30year span. A reporter asked him how do you compare buying VS and an A380 and he said it does not come close.
Because a large part of the manufacturing takes place in the UK for the A380... The wings, which are if I'm not mistaken quite a big and critical part of the aircraft.
Also, many airlines have gone for Rolls Royce engines, which are British.
So essentially ordering an A380 is good for the British economy as well as the French, German, Spanish.. etc
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 33, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 68340 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 30): Because a large part of the manufacturing takes place in the UK for the A380... The wings, which are if I'm not mistaken quite a big and critical part of the aircraft.
Also, many airlines have gone for Rolls Royce engines, which are British.
So essentially ordering an A380 is good for the British economy as well as the French, German, Spanish.. etc
After reading that blogspot entry, it becomes clear, why they are sucking up to the Brits.
Looks like quite a bit of bribery might be going on. Just sayin'.
We'll see what comes of this.
The more I think about it, the more I am leaning toward a CX order.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1327 posts, RR: 2 Reply 35, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 68000 times:
Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 33): After reading that blogspot entry, it becomes clear, why they are sucking up to the Brits.
Looks like quite a bit of bribery might be going on. Just sayin'.
We'll see what comes of this.
The more I think about it, the more I am leaning toward a CX order.
Well if you are going to use that logic then I would say Germany and France are also culprits here. It has been known for Airbus orders to be signed in conjunction with state visits by the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy/Hollande so it is a bit naive to accuse the Brits of bribery here.
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 39, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 67821 times:
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 35): Well if you are going to use that logic then I would say Germany and France are also culprits here. It has been known for Airbus orders to be signed in conjunction with state visits by the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy/Hollande so it is a bit naive to accuse the Brits of bribery here.
Oh, no doubt about that.
But I haven't heard of any lobbying to let unsafe airlines come back into the EU by anyone but RR.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1709 posts, RR: 4 Reply 41, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 67250 times:
It's going to be either major Asian or European customer. I highly doubt any carrier from North America will ever order A380. 777-9X is as large as they will go, size-wise.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 44, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 66959 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 41): 777-9X is as large as they will go, size-wise.
Much too late to replace their 744 fleets! And such plane would largely carry on the comfort and passenger appeal shortfalls the 77W now has against the 748I and A380.
Airbus announces a deal securing 9000 jobs there. And they do make the A380 wings so its about a signifcant A380 deal. Sounds a lot like many more A380s for BA.
airlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 66649 times:
considering that new airlines cannot wait for an open slot for the A380 by 2015 was it or 2017 not so sure about the date but are there any frames available by 2013 must it be a new airline for the A380 needing it ASAP?
Heavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 634 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 66338 times:
G´day
Likely Tony Fernandes is saving on travel costs by combining the order announcements for 100 A 320´s for Air Asia and a dozen or so A 380´s for Air Asia X expansion
The BA top-up for twenty more will be announced when they get their first A 380 delivered next year.
The CX order for a dozen A 380´s is not going to happen this year, but then again the A company also needs some press next year
Cheers
Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6191 posts, RR: 79 Reply 50, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 65893 times:
Quoting na (Reply 44): And such plane would largely carry on the comfort and passenger appeal shortfalls the 77W now has against the 748I and A380.
Which are those exactly? Seats, pitch and IFE are independant from airframe size. Cabin noise? Not a good argument. I'd prefer engine/outside noise over snorring or loudly chatting people around me any time. Noise-cancelling headphones work in any case. Smoother cruise? No, I have experienced significant turbulence on the A380.
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 65866 times:
My guess is CX, followed by BA, with TK and GA possible but less likely. I don't think Leahy needed to hold back if EK was behind the order because EK would have let everybody know by now. The same applies to EY and QR.
BA: They were talking about A350-1000/787-10/77X more than A380, and will they top up even before having A380 in service?
TK: Only recently did they announce substantial A330+77W orders. Do they still need A380?
GA and LATAM: don't know enough to comment.
Airlines that were mentioned in this thread but seems (very) unlikely
HU: They have only recently said they are looking to change their A380 orders into A330/A320s, makes little sense to place another order now.
SQ: Recently topped up with 5 more.
CA: They have 5x748i+19 77W+A350+787-9 on order/partially delivered. No need for A380.
MU: their largest aircraft is A346 (5) and they signed an MOU for 20x77W.
CZ: Needs to digest the 5 they ordered first.
NH: Seems focused on 787. I came across a report (sorry no link) recently that suggested that A380 is not very high on their priority list
UA: Weren't they thinking about A350-900/-1000 to replace their 747s? Should they require a VLA wouldn't 77X or 747-8i make more sense?
CI: They are ordering 77W
KE: With 10xA380 and 5x747-8i on order it seems its 16x744 replacement is done
Having said all that, does anyone know why A380 was flying from Hawaii to HK recently? If HA is not interested, which airline(s) was Airbus demonstrating to?
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 52, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 65168 times:
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 51): Having said all that, does anyone know why A380 was flying from Hawaii to HK recently? If HA is not interested, which airline(s) was Airbus demonstrating to?
trent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 422 posts, RR: 2 Reply 56, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 63166 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 12): Why do I have a feeling it's going to be GA...
EK413
Ummm... because you're taking something that's either prescription or not... (meant in a friendly way).
I don't think GA has routes that would fill an A380.
CX - yes, I can see that.
NH - I'd like to see that, but can't see them filling seats because travel is far too seasonal from Japan.
VS - possibly
BA - don't think so - and equally no more to EK or QF.
I hope it will be UA!
I believe the A380 could serve major routes such as LAX/SYD/MEL or LAX or SFO/LHR or FRA (or others).
Mark2fly1034 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 63092 times:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say Win Air or Cape Air. DL would be nice seeing as they are buying 49% of airlines this week, they need something next week.
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 62877 times:
The British press often say 'xxx jobs will be safeguarded by this event' which means absolutely nothing as those jobs weren't in danger in the first place as there are one or two other orders outstanding....!.
Besides, I'd be very surprised if they did, because so far they have avoided committing to any aircraft larger than the 777-300ER and A350-1000 because that's what suits their model best. The 777-300ER and the A350-1000 both offer better cargo carrying capabilities than the A380, as does the 747-8, when passengers and bags are taken into account.
Quoting qf340500 (Reply 17): They have a lot of competition with A380s in service or arriving: Singapore Airlines, Korean Air, Asiana, China Southern, Malaysia Airlines, Thai...
I don't think that should have any relevance to an airline's decision on which plane they order. Just because other airlines are operating it doesn't mean they have to; it has to suit them as well.
Quoting na (Reply 44): And such plane would largely carry on the comfort and passenger appeal shortfalls the 77W now has against the 748I and A380.
Such as?
Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 50): Which are those exactly? Seats, pitch and IFE are independant from airframe size. Cabin noise? Not a good argument. I'd prefer engine/outside noise over snorring or loudly chatting people around me any time. Noise-cancelling headphones work in any case. Smoother cruise? No, I have experienced significant turbulence on the A380.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1327 posts, RR: 2 Reply 60, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 62479 times:
Quoting KL911 (Reply 46): BA already has the A380 on order, and I doubt LHR has enough space to build more A380 gates.
The masterplan for LHR states that a third satellite may be built at Terminal 5 (T5D), which could add quite a few A380 gates.. there are already a couple at T5B and quite a few at T5C. There'll be space.
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3514 posts, RR: 6 Reply 61, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 62345 times:
QR really need to order a whole new tranche of A380s to keep up with EK. QR's 3 vs EK's 30 is a major imbalance.
I would also think BA will need to order more. An iconic international airline flying around with twin jets doesn't inspire confidence or send out the right image for the UK post Olympics.
We probably will see a lot more orders in 2013 as airlines around the world see what the A380 has done for the current airlines it serves and passenger satisfaction.
I'd like it to be Iberia but I doubt that will ever happen.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10690 posts, RR: 100 Reply 65, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 61506 times:
There is mention of a T5D in wikipedia that is planned. There is certainly more space at T5C for the A380, so even if T5D only takes other aircraft, it would free up space for the A388.
gokmengs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1098 posts, RR: 2 Reply 67, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 61396 times:
As much as I would like to see TK order the A380 we can take them off the list. Only recently the CEO suggested that TK needs VLA's but will not be ordering them till at least 2016 when they have a clear picture of the new airport situation. Right after that statement they announced the 777/330 order which is significant.
Also note at its current layout IST is not capable of regular A380 service...
My bet is that it will be CX, the launch 380 and the 380 they would get has improved significantly, and they will finally pull the trigger IMO.
BommerJan From Spain, joined Dec 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 61290 times:
[quote=airlinebuilder,reply=22]"The French and the British are certainly happy that PAL is giving them a big chunk of the business via the acquisition of Airbus aircraft that include A330s, A320s, A340s, A319s, as well as A350s and A380s"
- The Philippine Star BUSINESS section Spy Bits by Babe G. Romualdez
......this can be that "order" remember Philippine Airlines got 36 more orders to go....
The French and the BRITISH? ...... Only goes to show that "Babe" has no insights .....
Same thing with AM. They could only make it work on MEX-MAD, maybe, big maybe, MEX-CDG and MEX-GRU But if they were going to buy a VLA they would go for the 747-8i, not the A380. I don´t know about LA, but their business model is strongly based on the 767/787, not on a VLA.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 74, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 59307 times:
I'd be surprised to see TK order either the 747-8 or A380-800 right now. They just added a significant order of 777-300ERs and A330-300s that will be pushing operations at IST.
As for NH and JL, both appear to not currently be interested in VLAs (they're retiring their 747-400 fleets) so an order would be significant on that basis (as well as their long and close relationship with Boeing).
PA would be a surprise for much the same reason as NH/JL (phasing out 747s) and their CEO has stated that the A380-800 could encounter issues operating out of Philippine airports.
If I had to put money down, I'd say EK will be adding another score or two.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 75, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 56211 times:
Maybe we can narrow the field down by deduction?
1. What airlines are big enough to buy A380s?
2. Of those, which of them have ruled buying A380s out (KL, IB, TK, DL etc.)
3. What does significant mean? (Likely ''substantial'').
3.1. What is substantial? (20+?)
4. Why is the news not bigger? (Rules out unexpected buyers)
5. Why does the news take place in 2012? (Airline that wants to write off big profits? Airbus can write off the wing repairs and asked an airline to generate some profit they can write those expenses off of?)
6. Why has that airline not bought A380s before? (MTOW increase and wing fix etc. aren't new. Maybe an airline that loses traffic to the A380-owning competition eg. Garuda, surrounded by A380 airlines, other changes in the company?)
7. What airline has the money for A380s?
8. How do the airlines left at this point announce orders (EK on air shows, China on state visits.. any of those in sight?)
9. Are there any indications from ''surprise buyers''? (Like Skymark. Garuda has mentioned interest, apparently so has Philippines?)
Personally, I think it will be Etihad. They seem to have gotten very aggressive recently. They've bought themselves into Air Berlin, Air France and KLM and now Kingfisher. They have the money. They have the infrastructure. They have A380s on order. 20 A380s for EY doesn't seem unrealistic. Maybe they can fly A380s into India under Kingfisher flight numbers? Maybe EY is just trying to expand more aggressively with this move to compete with EK?
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11956 posts, RR: 37 Reply 76, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 56155 times:
Can it be said that no airline is publicly interested (indeed, may be publicly disinterested/dismissive!) until they actually do the deed!
I think all of the possible options have been listed in the thread. I tend to think that TK is a possibility, likewise CA and CX, but I am not expecting CX to order until the middle of next year - but of course, if Airbus gives them a good deal, why wait.
The thing about CX is that they are phasing out 744s and with new products being added to their 77W fleet, capacity is being reduced on this types (I think a four class 77W has about 278 seats, although not all are in that config); however, on primary route like LAX, SFO, JFK and LHR, that means losing quite a bit of capacity. So, this - to me - means that CX is a strong possibility, even if they don't order now.
goosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 56023 times:
Interesting that not long ago many here were saying the A380 would never sell many more. Yet now there are so many airlines that are being lined up for this order that its going to be a huge success!
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 55578 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 65): I see MASSIVE room for growth at LHR for the A380.
Heathrow is a relatively small airport, there is not space for 'massive' numbers of A380s. Many of the taxiways cannot accept code F aircraft and it will be many years before they will be able to.
Two additional stands, 340 & 342 have/are being converted in T3 to accomodate the current operators, (yesterday SIA and UAE both used stand 342), so more expansion in T3 is not near. In fact space is at such a premium that the conversion of those two stands meant the closing of another one....
Lets slow down a little bit , were talking about an order that hasn't been confirmed nor do we even know who the buyer is. Will it be a success ? Probably. Will many more new operators order it ? Probably not. It is a niche aircraft. As for the order - my money is on EK , just don't see any others , I hope to be pleasantly surprised however.
EBGflyer From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 886 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 53953 times:
I'm surprised only one here mentions China Southern (CZ). They only ordered 5 and had 4 deliveries so far. Maybe they'd like to top op before they get their final frame. It would be likely for the following reasons:
1) They are content with the performance so far and since it's not really efficient to have such a small subfleet, they will get more
2) The EU-CHINA ETS issue has been put to rest for a while.
3) They have financing
Another suggestion could be Air China. If not perhaps Qatar Airways.
[Edited 2012-12-13 10:55:43]
Next flights: CPH-FRA-CPH: CPH-BKK-MNL-BKK-CPH; CPH-BRU-CPH
Agree. I would think DL would order the 77W before the 748i, let alone the A380.
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 51): TK: Only recently did they announce substantial A330+77W orders. Do they still need A380?
I agree it is unlikely that TK is the customer. Then again, they have surprised us in the past.
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 51): KE: With 10xA380 and 5x747-8i on order it seems its 16x744 replacement is done
Good point. However, I think we will see in the medium term a follow-on order of a few more A380s or a few more 748s. If such a follow-on order for A380s materializes, I would not call it significant.
Quoting trent1000 (Reply 56): NH - I'd like to see that, but can't see them filling seats because travel is far too seasonal from Japan.
Unless they want them for domestic flights in a high-density config?
No way. AR385 has already explained AM would only be able to deploy them to MAD and GRU (EZE during peak travel periods maybe?). I don't think CDG could support it. Back when AM ordered the 789s, they mentioned they "considered the 748i" for the MAD and GRU routes and then "decided to go for frequency over capacity",but even that remark was not credible IMHO. Maybe 10 or 20 years down the road we will see a V.L.A. order from AM but definitely not now.
They just announced to order 5 additional airframes but the order is not yet firm. So I would find it very dissapointing if JL classify a top-up-order for 5 airframes as "significant".
Furthermore, I am suprised that so many think about TK as they clearly said "not now" just very recently.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2228 posts, RR: 8 Reply 86, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 51247 times:
Unless my usually very reliable sources are wrong, it's not EK.
I am among the crowd who think it's probably CX, but I'm going to toss a wild-card out there - KL
cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7710 posts, RR: 55 Reply 89, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49642 times:
Cedarjet's bet is United. Their 747s are among the oldest in the business and there are a load of routes they fly that can't be flown with anything less than jumbo capacity - namely, Australia, and their routes from SFO, ORD and NYC to Japan and China. A 777 replacing a 747 is a major step down in capacity and I don't think they're ready to cede that kind of market share to Qantas, Delta, JAL, Nippon, Air China et al.
Come on United Air Lines!
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 90, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49510 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 78): But enablers like available production slots in a timely manner, or appropriate financing, might be "new".
Where would those (earlier) production slots come from, especially in ''significant'' proportions? Financing can indeed play a role, though most A380 operators are in healthy financial shape. The cost of capital has been stagnant (low) for a while now as well.
I'm only speculating as I have zero insight on the situation beyond what is publicly known. For all I/we know, the term significant could just as well mean ''unexpected/mile stone'' (as opposed to ''substantial'') and it's El Al taking up those Kingfisher slots.
petera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49519 times:
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49327 times:
Quoting something (Reply 90): I'm only speculating as I have zero insight on the situation beyond what is publicly known. For all I/we know, the term significant could just as well mean ''unexpected/mile stone'' (as opposed to ''substantial'') and it's El Al taking up those Kingfisher slots.
An order for 5 would be 'significant' in a year where the order book totals 4......
HoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49331 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 89): Cedarjet's bet is United. Their 747s are among the oldest in the business and there are a load of routes they fly that can't be flown with anything less than jumbo capacity - namely, Australia, and their routes from SFO, ORD and NYC to Japan and China. A 777 replacing a 747 is a major step down in capacity and I don't think they're ready to cede that kind of market share to Qantas, Delta, JAL, Nippon, Air China et al.
UA is already going to be downgauging their ORD routes to 777s next spring. I don't think any 747s fly out of the NY area for UA at the moment.
As for my guess, I'd say Pan Am is coming back from the dead and ordering A380s.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 96, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49062 times:
The only reason they're refocusing the 744 fleet is for maintainability. They've been having some challenges related to the 744s lately.
That being said, the A350 order is intended to be the plane that flies the 744 routes, although I really cannot see the A350-900 being enough airplane for that.
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 49036 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 95): We are approaching 300 orders. Just out of curiosity – starting from which number would you classify the A 380 as a non-niche-aircraft?
A bit of an optimistic comment? Wiki shows 262 orders of which around 25 must be classed as a bit suspect
Niche - as in it only fits into a minority of airlines business plans. I wouldn't place a sales volume on it. The Mini Cooper is a niche car but they sell the heck out of them.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 101, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 48072 times:
Quoting something (Reply 90): Where would those (earlier) production slots come from, especially in ''significant'' proportions?
I didn't say "earlier". I said "in a timely manner" - i.e. as another year passes and 30 more planes get delivered, more slots start to come into the range that customers will consider for ordering...
My money would be on Hainan Airlines. As before and continuing today, UA and DL will probably not order the A380 as their route structure is not conducive to having a VLA. I know that they have the 744 and that those aircraft will eventually need replacing, but I believe that those replacements would come in the form of A359/10 or the 777-X variant.
Quoting babybus (Reply 61): QR really need to order a whole new tranche of A380s to keep up with EK.
But do they want to keep up with EK in EK style? Or will they go on an build on a bit smaller planes?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 74): I'd be surprised to see TK order either the 747-8 or A380-800 right now. They just added a significant order of 777-300ERs and A330-300s that will be pushing operations at IST.
Agreed. TK is unlikely to be a candidate for this announcement.
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 88): My money is on EK adding 30 frames, launch of A380-900, and converting a few existing orders to the same model as well.
You are very optimistic. It is in my opinion too soon for the launch of the A380-900. Mid 2015 with EIS in 2020 would be a better time I guess.
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3913 posts, RR: 4 Reply 105, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 46074 times:
Considering DL are going ahead with a 49% stake takeover of VS would it be possible that DL have decided to take on VS A380 order and topped it up with an additional 10 frames to replace the B744 fleet from 2017 which was the latest delivery date for VS A380s...
EGPH From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 45982 times:
I would suggest CX as a real possibility on this one. Would like to see KL or IB order though, really do think KL might decide in the future the A380 is for them. IB not going to happen unless they change strategy and decide to offer more long haul than just LatAm
cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7710 posts, RR: 55 Reply 107, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 45604 times:
I'm repeating myself but I say again, cos no-one else is saying it - UNITED UNITED UNITED. Only Gigneil is talking sense here - and he's right - no way do you go from a 747 to an A350. That's a cut in capacity of 50% at a stroke. No way. They need a big plane, and it almost certainly won't be 747-822s (although that would also be nice).
Quoting gigneil (Reply 96): the A350 order is intended to be the plane that flies the 744 routes, although I really cannot see the A350-900 being enough airplane for that.
If Airbus are about to announce a new A380 customer, I'm telling you, it's United.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 108, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 45278 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 107): I'm repeating myself but I say again, cos no-one else is saying it - UNITED UNITED UNITED. Only Gigneil is talking sense here - and he's right - no way do you go from a 747 to an A350. That's a cut in capacity of 50% at a stroke. No way.
United assuredly has the option of converting some or all of those A350-900 orders into A350-1000s, which would significantly close the gap to the 747-400.
Also, UA just down-gauged LAX-NRT to a 787-8 so they seem to be quite ready to gut capacity in order to shore up yields.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 105): Considering DL are going ahead with a 49% stake takeover of VS would it be possible that DL have decided to take on VS A380 order and topped it up with an additional 10 frames to replace the B744 fleet from 2017 which was the latest delivery date for VS A380s...
DL is husbanding their cash by purchasing used airframes. There is zero chance they're going to drop tens of billions on brand new A380-800s.
avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4092 posts, RR: 18 Reply 109, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 44879 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 107): That's a cut in capacity of 50% at a stroke.
No, it's not. Remember, United only seats about 360 people in its 744s.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 44694 times:
Can't see that many of the proposed new customers would count as a "significant order", unless perhaps UA or CX. I say it isn't going to be CX ordering the A388. More likely we are seeing the launch order for the A380-900. Or I've gotten worked up for nothing.
n471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1182 posts, RR: 1 Reply 111, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 44769 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 108):
DL is husbanding their cash by purchasing used airframes
Another example of why Delta is smarter than other carriers--------As a 40-year WN customer and raving SWA fan, nonetheless I am admiring Delta more and more on what they are doing!!
pliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 44272 times:
Perhaps a bit out in left field, but any thoughts about high capacity domestic use....say between airports on Japan or within China, ala the 747 Domestic?
Out of the box thinking I'm sure, looking forward to the shots over the bow.
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 376 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 43835 times:
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4847 posts, RR: 27 Reply 115, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 43696 times:
Quoting EddieDude (Reply 84): (EZE during peak travel periods maybe?).
I´m not so sure. EZE is very seasonal for MEX-EZE, and AR is not going to remain a basketcase forever. And if they ever come back to be as what they were in the 80s, they´ll be a force to reckon with. I´m talking long term here...
Quoting EGPH (Reply 106): Would like to see KL or IB order though
IB is just not going to happen for at least a decade.
CCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 708 posts, RR: 14 Reply 116, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 43605 times:
Well considering Airbus had its test A380 in the HAECO hangar yesterday and Airbus was at CX plus drinks were held in the A/C last night, I'd say Airbus is pushing hard at CX.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7177 posts, RR: 45 Reply 117, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 43361 times:
Quoting AR385 (Reply 115): I´m not so sure. EZE is very seasonal for MEX-EZE, and AR is not going to remain a basketcase forever. And if they ever come back to be as what they were in the 80s, they´ll be a force to reckon with. I´m talking long term here...
Good point. I guess this reinforces our previous assessment that A380s are a no-go for AM.
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4847 posts, RR: 27 Reply 118, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 42836 times:
Quoting EddieDude (Reply 117): I guess this reinforces our previous assessment that A380s are a no-go for AM.
I think so. Besides, I can´t see them not going with the 748i, if they wanted a VLA. The relationship with Boeing is too cozy, plus NAFTA and the synergies such a purchase could generate, specially in QRO.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 123, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 41753 times:
I thought CX wanted an aircraft with greater range than A380 offered. A380 has lost some weight in the last 5 years. Engines have improved fuel burn as well. Range must have increased. Might range have increased enough to make it useable for more CX routes than the "original" version?
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 41583 times:
Quoting art (Reply 123): I thought CX wanted an aircraft with greater range than A380 offered. A380 has lost some weight in the last 5 years. Engines have improved fuel burn as well. Range must have increased. Might range have increased enough to make it useable for more CX routes than the "original" version?
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 760 posts, RR: 1 Reply 128, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 41147 times:
I got my money on Great Lakes.
I'm calling CX. Or Jet Airways or Air India.
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 40188 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 124): CX's main objection was cargo volume.
I think that Art is right - the cargo volume argument seems to me to be mostly a-net wisdom often enough questioned by people who should know CXs operations well. I think CX either wanted more range or more capacity (-900). I feel CX is one of the main candidates for this order for the reasons Art mentions.
Guess you didn't catch the news about their fleet simplification and job cuts program then?
Iberia have currently neither the need nor the means to order the A380.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, RR: 4 Reply 134, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 39287 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 126): I prefer CX going with 747-8i instead of A380...
Likewise. The 747-8i would look great in CX colours.
Quoting abba (Reply 130): I think that Art is right - the cargo volume argument seems to me to be mostly a-net wisdom often enough questioned by people who should know CXs operations well.
Perhaps you're right, but if it is more than "a.net wisdom", then it's a legitimate concern. When pax and bags are accounted for, there are fewer LD3 positions available on the A380 for revenue cargo than on the 777-300ER or A350-1000, both of which CX have ordered in significant numbers. As a large part of CX's operation is cargo based, it's logical - at least, to me - to conclude that at least part of the reason that the A380 hasn't found its way into CX's fleet is because of its relative lack of cargo volume.
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, RR: 1 Reply 138, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 38086 times:
Quoting art (Reply 123):
I thought CX wanted an aircraft with greater range than A380 offered. A380 has lost some weight in the last 5 years. Engines have improved fuel burn as well. Range must have increased. Might range have increased enough to make it useable for more CX routes than the "original" version?
There is no route in CX network that the A380 can not operate, so why would they need more range from it?
Heavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 634 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 37742 times:
G´day
They are visiting Hong Kong with the A 380, so it is likely that one or several potential customers are from that general area, which besides airlines located in Hong Kong could also include airlines from the south of China. Likely not from Taiwan, else they would have flown the A 380 there unless of course the Taiwanese want to avoid publicity on their negotiations.
But then Leahy is in in the UK now - or was yesterday for the Air Asia announcement, so who is negotiating?
The question also arises why they stopped over in Hawaii, not really the most direct route to Hong Kong. I do not see Hawaiian to buy the thing, but why then did they visit Hawaii. I doubt they did that to confuse us A-netters
Cheers
Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2250 posts, RR: 1 Reply 142, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 37021 times:
I think the MTOW and aero improvements being introduced from the 1st BA a/c onwards may have finally convinced CX. The recent Hawaii visit is probably just a little thank you bonus to HA for being a good Airbus customer, maybe some general marketing tour combined with long-range flight tests. The visit to HKG however may be no coincidence....
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 138): There is no route in CX network that the A380 can not operate, so why would they need more range from it?
More "marketing spec" range no. More payload-range yes. LAX-HKG comes to mind.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2697 posts, RR: 1 Reply 144, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 36576 times:
As for people thinking this could be firming of orders. The article says Leahy is hopeful for a memorandum of understanding before year-end with the firm order in 2013. So that takes that theory out of play.
Of course, that quote can be wrong and they actually meant firming of an order, but in that case we might as well not take the whole article into consideration then.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1790 posts, RR: 6 Reply 145, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 36625 times:
CX always showed interest for the improved A380 with the extra range and now you can order it. CX could be behind the 'significant order', maybe 10 or 12 frames.
Quoting MCO2BRS (Reply 141): Could this be a firming up of the HX order that has been hanging in limbo for a while now?
airlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 146, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 36487 times:
Must CX be the candidate to the A380, that will the last nail to the B748i, forever it will be a rare breed. I still hope 6 frames for Philippine Airlines with options for 4 considering its transpacific targets of New York, Chicago, Miami
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 424 posts, RR: 0 Reply 147, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 36366 times:
I'd like to see BAs next step in their longhaul fleet renewal. Think I remember reading somewhere that they were planning to have a decision by end of 2012, or was it 2013?
I think they will definitely get some more A380s, maybe 10 or 15 more. Along with some more 77W and then probably wait and see what Boeing will do with the 777-X for the rest of their 747 replacement.
Other than BA, I see CX, CI, KL, UA and then a bunch of top up orders at a later date.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 148, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 36296 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 145): Quoting MCO2BRS (Reply 141):
Could this be a firming up of the HX order that has been hanging in limbo for a while now?
That order was already been firmed up.
''Hainan Airlines’ subsidiary Hong Kong Airlines is considering changing out its Airbus A380 orders in favor of the A330 [...] Hainan Airlines Group chairman Chen Feng said the company is in negotiations with Airbus but no final decision has been made.''
''The Chinese government reportedly blocked the order earlier this year, in part to express its disapproval of Chinese carriers' inclusion in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which has been suspended one year to allow time for ICAO to finalize a global scheme.''
airlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 149, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 36227 times:
no one in this forum as answered my query yet, must there be an order for an ASAP delivery for the A380, where will airbus take it from and how soon can it be delivered? are the canceled frames on the production line already?
Then I have to ask the question: "For who?"
Perhaps it is a legitimate concern for YOU that CX is not going to have that much cargo on the routes that they might use the A380 to serve. But again - according to people who are in a position to know how CX operates - this might not be a concern for CX...
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 134): As a large part of CX's operation is cargo based, it's logical - at least, to me - to conclude that at least part of the reason that the A380 hasn't found its way into CX's fleet is because of its relative lack of cargo volume.
Perhaps it is logical to you. However, it is not what CX has been saying. And I will not pretend to be able to read their silent harts and minds.
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 151, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 35967 times:
Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 149): no one in this forum as answered my query yet, must there be an order for an ASAP delivery for the A380, where will airbus take it from and how soon can it be delivered? are the canceled frames on the production line already?
There is a mention in the ilnked article that there are no available slots till 2015 but if an order is cancelled when the plane is already being made they will be resold. For someone who's really desperate there's also MSN002 which appears to of been deferred or cancelled by the VVIP customer.
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 152, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36192 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 76): The thing about CX is that they are phasing out 744s and with new products being added to their 77W fleet, capacity is being reduced on this types (I think a four class 77W has about 278 seats, although not all are in that config); however, on primary route like LAX, SFO, JFK and LHR, that means losing quite a bit of capacity. So, this - to me - means that CX is a strong possibility, even if they don't order now.
There may be some early slot availablility, given the HKA and Kingfisher likely cancellations.
........except for the fact that their subsidiary HKA is said to want to cancel at least some of their 10 already on firm order.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 142): The recent Hawaii visit is probably just a little thank you bonus to HA for being a good Airbus customer, maybe some general marketing tour
lostsound From Canada, joined May 2012, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36223 times:
If Cathay is going with a VLA I expect it to be the A380. In fact I'm pretty sure CX's only hold back on the A380 was to wait for an A380-900 option. They want capacity, and the A380 offers significantly more than the 748i.
Heavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 634 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36200 times:
G´day
If - emphasis on IF - CX is going to buy the A 380 it will be as a people mover, freight will be of little consideration. It is more than likely however that where a lot of people are being moved also a lot of freight is being moved, so they can more than likely use a dedicated freighter on that same route.
So the A-net mantra that the A 380 does not carry enough freight for CX gets diluted somewhat and does not apply in my opinion. Fact is a lot of competitors are already using the A 380 into HKG making money on passengers alone and reducing the CX margin on those very routes.
Just some more food for thought
Cheers
Peter
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11956 posts, RR: 37 Reply 155, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36173 times:
Quoting abba (Reply 150): Quoting CXB77L (Reply 134):
As a large part of CX's operation is cargo based, it's logical - at least, to me - to conclude that at least part of the reason that the A380 hasn't found its way into CX's fleet is because of its relative lack of cargo volume.
I think that's a far point, but they have enough cargo acft in their fleet, now and on order, to make up for t
he possible shortfall of A388 cargo capacity. And it's not as if it has NO cargo capacity, just less than CX might like.
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 138): There is no route in CX network that the A380 can not operate, so why would they need more range from it?
On paper, yes, but the A346 had a very good range on paper and look what happened to that ... it left the fleet as soon as CX could get rid of them. The CX people will need a lot of convincing that the A380 can do all that Airbus says it can; for such a huge investment, CX doesn't want to jump too quickly and it will have been taking note of the experiences of other carriers, such as QF and SQ, which operate very long A388 routes. I suspect this is what it will come down to. As soon as CX is sure that the A380 can do the routes CX wants, then CX will go down this road. As I mentioned previously, the 77Ws in premium configs give CX quite a significant shortfall in pax capacity, so the need is definitely there.
My understanding is that despite the cargo version being used by CX, the 748I is not in contention.
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 156, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36201 times:
Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 146): I still hope 6 frames for Philippine Airlines with options for 4 considering its transpacific targets of New York, Chicago, Miami
Their transpacific target should be to get back to Cat I status...
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1790 posts, RR: 6 Reply 157, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36113 times:
Quoting something (Reply 148): ''Hainan Airlines’ subsidiary Hong Kong Airlines is considering changing out its Airbus A380 orders in favor of the A330 [...] Hainan Airlines Group chairman Chen Feng said the company is in negotiations with Airbus but no final decision has been made.''
''The Chinese government reportedly blocked the order earlier this year, in part to express its disapproval of Chinese carriers' inclusion in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which has been suspended one year to allow time for ICAO to finalize a global scheme.''
HX has been treated as a canceled order already. Maybe now with the ETS suspended there's a chance those A380 will be delivered.
I know they threaten to cancel the order, but you can find the HX order in the Airbus order book so it's not a MoU as MCO2BRS suggests. They firmed it, and are now looking to cancel/swap the firm order.
flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1052 posts, RR: 1 Reply 158, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36122 times:
Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 146): I still hope 6 frames for Philippine Airlines with options for 4 considering its transpacific targets of New York, Chicago, Miami
Well, NAIA does already have an A380-capable LH Technik hangar, don't they?
That said, unfortunately I don't see them ordering any. I expect to see them sign up for some 787s in the near future though.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 159, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 36101 times:
Quoting something (Reply 148): 'Hainan Airlines’ subsidiary Hong Kong Airlines is considering changing out its Airbus A380 orders in favor of the A330 [...] Hainan Airlines Group chairman Chen Feng said the company is in negotiations with Airbus but no final decision has been made.''
There are rumours that when HX cancel their A380 order, it will free up slots that Airbus are pushing CX to take. The demo A380 is in Hong kong at the moment and Airbus reps have told one of my colleagues that they are there to demo the plane for CX. Our CEO claimed a couple of months ago that CX had not had a 'detailed' look at the 380 yet. Perhaps this is part of that detailed look. Airbus took the plane out for a few hours for a demo flight this morning with CX managers on board apparently.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 162, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 35950 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 159): Quoting something (Reply 148):
'Hainan Airlines’ subsidiary Hong Kong Airlines is considering changing out its Airbus A380 orders in favor of the A330 [...] Hainan Airlines Group chairman Chen Feng said the company is in negotiations with Airbus but no final decision has been made.''
There are rumours that when HX cancel their A380 order, it will free up slots that Airbus are pushing CX to take. The demo A380 is in Hong kong at the moment and Airbus reps have told one of my colleagues that they are there to demo the plane for CX. Our CEO claimed a couple of months ago that CX had not had a 'detailed' look at the 380 yet. Perhaps this is part of that detailed look. Airbus took the plane out for a few hours for a demo flight this morning with CX managers on board apparently.
Most interesting and thank you for the insight my friend
The reason why I rule/d CX as a buyer out is because, as previously mentioned, I'm under the impression that the company is most professionally run. CX is one of the most ''obvious'' A380 airlines. They have a lot of long flights where frequency doesn't matter, they have a lot of flights that fly at almost the exact same times, they operate into slot restricted airports like NRT, LHR and JFK, they are a premium airline that wouldn't need to put too many seats into the A380 but they also have the traffic volumes to do it.
The fact that they haven't yet bought an A380 has been a very clear statement to me that they are not interested in an airplane that size. I was expecting them to wait for the A389 to become available and then order 20+10 or so of them.
It is very hard for me to believe that the people at CX haven't even had a closer look of the A380. Hard to believe not because I doubt what you're saying, but hard to believe because I appear to have given the management at CX way too much credit.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1790 posts, RR: 6 Reply 163, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 35952 times:
Quoting Wolbo (Reply 160): Whatever happened to the Vietnam Airlines a380 MoU? Was it officially cancelled or is it still hanging out there somewhere?
Vietnam Airlines is/was only interested for the higher gross weight variant of the A380. And the new airport needs to be ready first. I can see some A380s in the Vietnam Airlines fleet by 2020, but not sooner.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 164, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 35814 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 134): When pax and bags are accounted for, there are fewer LD3 positions available on the A380 for revenue cargo than on the 777-300ER or A350-1000, both of which CX have ordered in significant numbers.
Question and answer in one sentence, perhaps?
It's not beyond the realms of reality to schedule a passenger heavy A380, and a freight heavy 777/A350 on a given route at different times to achieve the overall objective..
Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 154): It is more than likely however that where a lot of people are being moved also a lot of freight is being moved, so they can more than likely use a dedicated freighter on that same route.
There are for sure more than one way to skin the cat
petera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 168, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 35246 times:
Very nice but still only two runways and basically full!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 169, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 35297 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 155): I think that's a far point, but they have enough cargo acft in their fleet, now and on order, to make up for the possible shortfall of A388 cargo capacity.
Cathay appears to be preparing to order three more 747-8Fs (Boeing has added three frames for them to their 747-8F production list)...
You have already stated on another thread that these 747-8F frames came from the Air China order, and CX dropped the 777Fs. Why make your post the way you have considering what you have posted before ?
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 171, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 35056 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 170): Why make your post the way you have considering what you have posted before ?
I made my post the way I did to tongue-in-cheek support kaitak's comments that the low revenue cargo capacity of the A380-800 can be compensated by dedicated freighters.
But as Lieutenant Saavik once noted, humor is a difficult concept for some...
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 176, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 33978 times:
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 89): Cedarjet's bet is United. Their 747s are among the oldest in the business and there are a load of routes they fly that can't be flown with anything less than jumbo capacity - namely, Australia, and their routes from SFO, ORD and NYC to Japan and China.
Those routes can be flown just fine with the 77W. I can't see any multi-hub carrier like UA (or any other US carrier) ordering the A380. If the 77W had been available when the 744 was launched, I doubt any would have ordered the 744 either.
Cargo is also important for US carriers since they don't operate dedicated freighters unlike most other A380 customers. The 77W has about 20% greater cargo capacity than the A380.
DualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 641 posts, RR: 1 Reply 177, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 33669 times:
No way it's UA. If it was Smisek would have the 380 order as a lure to vote yes on the pilot TA.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 25 Reply 178, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 33379 times:
I think this MoU, if it will come true, is not linked to current demonstration of MSN 004 in Hong Kong. It simply sounds to easy: send the demonstrator and sign a MoU just some days later.
Maybe this demonstration will help for the next MoU but not necessarily for the one John Leahy is now talking about.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 180, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 32165 times:
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 181, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 31950 times:
Quoting abba (Reply 130): I think that Art is right - the cargo volume argument seems to me to be mostly a-net wisdom often enough questioned by people who should know CXs operations well. I think CX either wanted more range or more capacity (-900). I feel CX is one of the main candidates for this order for the reasons Art mentions.
I always thought CX had said themselves that they didn't like the cargo "volume". Seems like they never specified volume that I can find. Thanks for pointing that out.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, RR: 4 Reply 182, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 31579 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting abba (Reply 150): However, it is not what CX has been saying.
CX hasn't said anything on the matter except to say that the A380 didn't fit its fleet network. Mr Tyler said so in an interview several years back. The reason for that, whether it is cargo capacity or not, is pure speculation. Some may suggest that it is, others may suggest that it's not.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 164): Question and answer in one sentence, perhaps?
It's not beyond the realms of reality to schedule a passenger heavy A380, and a freight heavy 777/A350 on a given route at different times to achieve the overall objective..
That's one way of looking at it. The other interpretation is that it shows a pattern of CX favouring passenger aircraft that can also haul a significant amount of cargo in its belly.
But yes, you're right, what you propose is quite possible.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 183, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 31529 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 182): But yes, you're right, what you propose is quite possible.
For what its worth I wasn't suggesting this could be "likely", or "inevitable".
It's just that A-net sometimes has a tendency to look at certain situations in a "one-dimensional", or "black-and-white" manner, (especially so when it suits a particular agenda) when reality typically presents a lot more options or alternatives.
It's very rare in complex situations like this for there to be a "single solution point"
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 185, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 30927 times:
Quoting n729pa (Reply 175): Significant can be one of two things....a new customer or a large number
I am inclined to agree. I might consider an A380 re-order (rather than a 777 re-order) from an established A380 and B777 user signifiicant, too. Just my interpretation of "significant".
As for "close", what might that mean? An airline with which JL has been negotiating has signalled its intention of placing an order and - barring hitches (finance etc) - the order will be placed soon?
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 186, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 30322 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 182): The other interpretation is that it shows a pattern of CX favouring passenger aircraft that can also haul a significant amount of cargo in its belly.
That interpretation would also suit LH. Both airlines have quite similar profiles and do favour aircraft which can carry both passengers and cargo in significant numbers. They are both among the largest airlines in the world hauling both in great numbers. Which is why LH likes the B744 so much, as they like the A346, and now they are very happy with the B748i.
But still that did not stop them from ordering the A388 as well, and they are also very happy with the performance of that magnificent aircraft in their fleet. I can imagine CX going the same way, though I am speculating here of course. .
Quoting astuteman (Reply 183): It's just that A-net sometimes has a tendency to look at certain situations in a "one-dimensional", or "black-and-white" manner, (especially so when it suits a particular agenda) when reality typically presents a lot more options or alternatives.
Very well put. The real world is always much more complex then we can imagine here at A-net. And the choices airlines make are proof for that. .
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 29646 times:
Quoting babybus (Reply 187): If it is United it will that old trick of ordering 50 and then cancelling in an effort to destabilize confidence in the aircraft.
Yes, since airlines do that all the time. Old trick indeed
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 189, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 29415 times:
They have early on been talking about range and capasity.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 182): CX hasn't said anything on the matter except to say that the A380 didn't fit its fleet network.
I find that to be a rather sweeping statement that certainly dosn't hold water. They have in fact said a few things. Just try make a google. But even if that was the case, I don't think that it serves us well to substitute their silence with our speculation. In fact, the routes where CX might use the 380 has so much traffic that they will be the same routes where CX is going to use their 748Fs.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 190, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 29047 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 181): Seems that the current CEO is now a bit less negative, but still hasn't ordered.
John has stated many times in public he has not ruled out any VLA, the issue is due to be address next year. Likely CX will be down to just 10 pax 744s withing th next 12-18 months with the current accelerated retirement schedule. If the global demand for air traffic reduces further, I think the chances of a VLA order will be lower.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 182): CX hasn't said anything on the matter except to say that the A380 didn't fit its fleet network.
I think that has been taken out of context, I believe he was saying he would prefer to build on frequency at the time, however there is a limit as to how many flights a day you can do to meet that market that is looking for timing flexibility. The demand on a hourly basis has peaks during the day.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 182): The other interpretation is that it shows a pattern of CX favouring passenger aircraft that can also haul a significant amount of cargo in its belly.
There is a point where that is no longer effective or not even possible to uplift cargo without offloading passenger. I would suggest you have a look at how much cargo payload a 77W can actually lift on a NYC-HKG flight, your idea of what is "significant" might change, it is less than what a A330 would carry regionally.
Regionally a lot of cargo is carried under the floor, the cost is not that great, on a TPE flight it might be around 50 kg of additional fuel per tonne of cargo, on a ULH like NYC, it might be tens time that much of fuel needed to carry each additional tonne of cargo. This has significant impact on the yield from the flight.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 186):
That interpretation would also suit LH
EK, QF, KE, SQ.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 191, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28129 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 190): John has stated many times in public he has not ruled out any VLA, the issue is due to be address next year. Likely CX will be down to just 10 pax 744s withing th next 12-18 months with the current accelerated retirement schedule. If the global demand for air traffic reduces further, I think the chances of a VLA order will be lower.
Thanks for that. You're significantly closer to CX's operations than casual observer like myself.
I personally hope that they don't buy the A388 to put pressure on Airbus to build the A389, but that doesn't make it good business sense.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5 Reply 192, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28113 times:
Now that Airbus has finally matured with the A380-800 production, my guess is that the MTOW and fuel burn of current-production A388's may meet Cathay Pacific's requirements for LAX-HKG year-round operations. As such, it could mean CX could be ready for a 15-20 plane order to replace their entire 747-400 fleet on their busiest long routes.
FreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 204 posts, RR: 0 Reply 194, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28102 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2): Well, as much as I'd like it to be UA or DL (though I'd prefer a 748 order!), I suspect that it's not a US-based customer.
The UA pilots just now got a new contract, so that increases the chances.....
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2091 posts, RR: 0 Reply 195, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27948 times:
IMO any order for the A380 is significant at this point...
Quoting kaitak (Reply 155): The CX people will need a lot of convincing that the A380 can do all that Airbus says it can; for such a huge investment
Well, those numbers are readily available after 5 years of service, and only improving.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 155): I think that's a far point, but they have enough cargo acft in their fleet, now and on order, to make up for t
he possible shortfall of A388 cargo capacity. And it's not as if it has NO cargo capacity, just less than CX might like
FWIW, throw it out there, most of the current 380 operators have dedicated cargo divisions too - SQ, KE, LH, CZ, AF, EK, MH, even BA through GSS. Notable exception is QF (who dont have the "cargo superior" 77W).
Another interesting coincidence is the gate at YVR that CX mainly use has been made 380 ready (surely a prime 380 route).
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5219 posts, RR: 6 Reply 196, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27771 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 195):
FWIW, throw it out there, most of the current 380 operators have dedicated cargo divisions too - SQ, KE, LH, CZ, AF, EK, MH, even BA through GSS. Notable exception is QF (who dont have the "cargo superior" 77W).
Actually QF do through wet lease from Atlas(?), 2-3 times a week.
cx828 From Hong Kong, joined May 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 197, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27478 times:
just a wild assumption, is it possible to have a 380 combi like Air China one to the 747M, so they can still have the passenger capacity of the old 744 and have the same cargo capacity as 77W and maintain the frequency as 4 daily to LHR or JFK.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 198, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27480 times:
Quoting cx828 (Reply 197): just a wild assumption, is it possible to have a 380 combi like Air China one to the 747M, so they can still have the passenger capacity of the old 744 and have the same cargo capacity as 77W and maintain the frequency as 4 daily to LHR or JFK.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4007 posts, RR: 6 Reply 199, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27540 times:
Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 194): The UA pilots just now got a new contract, so that increases the chances.....
Perhaps, from 0.000001% to 0.000005%.
UA will probably get A350-1000s at some point. There will not be an A380 with a globe anytime soon, if ever, for reasons argued ad nauseam here.
HNL-Jack From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 795 posts, RR: 0 Reply 201, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 27508 times:
Haven't read all the entries, so forgive me if this speculation has already been offered, but it was interesting that the demo A-380 stopped in HNL on its way to HKG a few days ago. Could it be that Cathay may have renewed interest?
Grew up in the business and continued the family tradition.
The A380 is reported to be visiting Taipei as well. This newslink from a local Taiwan paper on Nov 12 says Dec 11 is the scheduled date when the A380 will visit Taiwan "and then Hong Kong". Plans have changed it seems or they may still proceed to Taipei at some point.
BR seems unlikely but Ci is still a strong possible as a buyer.
ZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 203, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28517 times:
From what I have read CX will take another look at the need for a VLA during 2013, so this current proposed A380 order won't be from CX going by that.
Personally I think CX do have a case for 12-15 VLAs for routes like LAX, SFO, JFK, LHR and possibly YVR, FRA, CDG. Be that A380s, or 748Is.
Hoepfully the order this thread is about would be a new order though i'm not to sure who if thats the case being significant. Maybe someone like ANA for 10 for their busiest long haul routes?!
andrewtang From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 457 posts, RR: 9 Reply 204, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28397 times:
Quoting cx828 (Reply 200): half of the bottom can be cargo, the top and front half will equal out the capacity of 744, i am not a professional, but will that be too heavy??
The FAA no longer certifies Combi aircraft for Commercial use.
Quoting tommy525 (Reply 202): BR seems unlikely but Ci is still a strong possible as a buyer.
I doubt CI needs the A380 for its operation though. CI has placed a firm order for 14 A350-900 back in 2008 and just about a week ago they announced that they will be ordering 6 B777-300ER to replace their existing A340-300. Apparently it is said that they are looking at replacing their ageing B747-400 with either the B777-300ER or the A350-1000.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2697 posts, RR: 1 Reply 205, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 28333 times:
Quoting andrewtang (Reply 204):
Quoting cx828 (Reply 200):
half of the bottom can be cargo, the top and front half will equal out the capacity of 744, i am not a professional, but will that be too heavy??
The FAA no longer certifies Combi aircraft for Commercial use.
Theoretically they would be allowed to have the whole main deck as cargo, and just use top deck for passengers (or perhaps the reverse), but that would need quite a bit of expensive customizing by Airbus, and I don't think any route would be so cargo heavy and passenger light (and any such route would be better served by dedicated freighter).
Deltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 206, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 28251 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 28):
You guys can for certanly take DL off the list. At least for as long as the current managment team is running the show. Yesterday during DL investor day conference R. Anderson mentioned several times that the A380 will not provide a reasonable ROI for DL over a 30year span. A reporter asked him how do you compare buying VS and an A380 and he said it does not come close.
Not only this, but Anderson has stated to employees before that the plane "is to big to make money". Delta wants twins.
Quoting EddieDude (Reply 84): Agree. I would think DL would order the 77W before the 748i, let alone the A380.
Twins are the future at Delta.
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 89): Cedarjet's bet is United. Their 747s are among the oldest in the business and there are a load of routes they fly that can't be flown with anything less than jumbo capacity - namely, Australia, and their routes from SFO, ORD and NYC to Japan and China. A 777 replacing a 747 is a major step down in capacity and I don't think they're ready to cede that kind of market share to Qantas, Delta, JAL, Nippon, Air China et al.
UA has been dumping 747s and replacing them with 777s. Routes like ORD-NRT, LAX-NRT are now on 777s or 787s. The A350 (IMO a mix of 900s and 1000s) will replace the 747 at UA.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 105): Considering DL are going ahead with a 49% stake takeover of VS would it be possible that DL have decided to take on VS A380 order and topped it up with an additional 10 frames to replace the B744 fleet from 2017 which was the latest delivery date for VS A380s...
Delta wont operate the A380 unless they have a huge, huge change in management.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 108):
DL is husbanding their cash by purchasing used airframes. There is zero chance they're going to drop tens of billions on brand new A380-800s
Not only this but Delta has been upgrading the fleet to push back fleet renewal. IMHO a mix of 777s and 787s will replace the the 747s. NWs plan was to replace the 747s with 787s....
Quoting gigneil (Reply 180): I think they'll have to go with an A350-1000 on the routes
agreed. Some routes are still to big for the 900. (a good bit of SFO-Asia)
Quoting FreshSide3 (Reply 194): The UA pilots just now got a new contract, so that increases the chances.....
not really. Negotiations 101. You hang something like the A380 or 717 to get a contract to pass. Its fairly odd to wait till after a contract to start talking about airplanes.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 207, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 28247 times:
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 206): UA has been dumping 747s and replacing them with 777s.
No they haven't. They have exactly 1 fewer 747 than they have always had.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 208, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 28207 times:
Quoting andrewtang (Reply 204): Apparently it is said that they are looking at replacing their ageing B747-400 with either the B777-300ER or the A350-1000.
Their large 744F fleet suggests the 748F has a future at CI, which makes the 748I seem possible also.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Deltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 209, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 28306 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 207): No they haven't. They have exactly 1 fewer 747 than they have always had.
UA has been, over the last few years, been dumping 747s and replacing them with 777s. (or just cutting the capacity without replacement)
UA at its peek had 44(per Boeing) 744s. They are down half of that. Yes most of that was during BK but IIRC UA exited BK with ~30 744s and is down to 24?(is its 25 with the Charter or 24 with the Charter?)
Not a bad thing, all the US carriers are going that route. Again, I wouldn't be shocked at all to see the 787 replace the bulk of the Delta 747 fleet.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 210, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 27386 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 190): Regionally a lot of cargo is carried under the floor, the cost is not that great, on a TPE flight it might be around 50 kg of additional fuel per tonne of cargo, on a ULH like NYC, it might be tens time that much of fuel needed to carry each additional tonne of cargo. This has significant impact on the yield from the flight.
Which is why non-stop long haul caqrgo ops will remain a minority - it is cheaper to stop half way to top up the tanks.
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 206): Yesterday during DL investor day conference R. Anderson mentioned several times that the A380 will not provide a reasonable ROI for DL over a 30year span.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 211, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 26724 times:
Quoting cx828 (Reply 197): just a wild assumption, is it possible to have a 380 combi like Air China one to the 747M, so they can still have the passenger capacity of the old 744 and have the same cargo capacity as 77W and maintain the frequency as 4 daily to LHR or JFK.
The cost to design and certify it, coupled with the inflexibility to adjust loads between passengers and cargos, and the added empty weight needed for fire and smoke protection would almost assuredly make such a plane economically unfeasible to operate, IMO.
Quoting andrewtang (Reply 204): The FAA no longer certifies Combi aircraft for Commercial use.
The FAA will certify a new combi, but said certification rules require the passenger and cargo cabin volumes be permanently set during initial assembly. Therefore, such a plane only makes sense where you fly the same number of passengers and pallets every flight with no deviation in load factors.
And I would be very surprised if there were any, much less many, routes where load factors are so set.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 212, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 25775 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 211): And I would be very surprised if there were any, much less many, routes where load factors are so set.
They don't need to be as rigid as you are outlining. You can still fly a dedicated freighter to deal with strong freight demand and sub in a passenger aircraft for strong pax demand. However, given that no airline has wanted such a thing tells us that they are still too rigid for them.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 213, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 25841 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 212): They don't need to be as rigid as you are outlining. You can still fly a dedicated freighter to deal with strong freight demand and sub in a passenger aircraft for strong pax demand.
At that point, why run the combi?
Might explain why some combi operators are moving to dedicated passenger or freighter fleets or are favoring planes like the 777-300ER (and eventually the A350-1000) that has so much underfloor volume it's almost a combi.
jet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 850 posts, RR: 0 Reply 214, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 25905 times:
Last Friday I was lucky enough to see a couple of AF A380s while transitting CDG. Yes one looked dirty, I was bemused to notice. Seeing it in person from the terminal it looked better than from pictures. And it seemed to me that changing your perspective by taking some steps left and right also affected the aesthetics.
Deltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 215, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 24542 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 210): He just bought 3 - well, 49% of VS's order for 6
IMHO Virgin wont ever have an A380....
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 25 Reply 216, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 22167 times:
So? Just one more working day left in 2012. Any chances for this "significant" MoU in 2012? I doubt it... If at all it will happen in 2013 and maybe it's even better this way
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, RR: 50 Reply 217, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 21972 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 216): Just one more working day left in 2012. Any chances for this "significant" MoU in 2012? I doubt it...
You may be surprised what will show up in the last few days of 2012. But you'll probably have to wait for Airbus's annual press conference around 17th January to find out.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10690 posts, RR: 100 Reply 218, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20749 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 120): Bugger reality. I doubt this will happen, this is what I would LIKE to see:
I would love to see that, but teh chance is 0.1%.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 213): or are favoring planes like the 777-300ER (and eventually the A350-1000) that has so much underfloor volume it's almost a combi.
That is one issue with the A380. No combi required, the new widebodies substitute. Even the 787 brings a significant amount more cargo. Some of the 'combi duties' is being absorbed into regular service.
That isn't to say I do not remain an A380 fan. There are still a tremendous number of routes for the big plane. If they would only get production in hand we'll see more orders. Of course I hope for the A389...
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 219, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 20582 times:
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 209): UA has been, over the last few years, been dumping 747s and replacing them with 777s. (or just cutting the capacity without replacement)
AVENSAB727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 221, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20201 times:
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 222, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 19086 times:
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, RR: 50 Reply 224, posted (4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16603 times:
Even if an MoU was signed before the end of 2012, I wouldn't expect to hear about it until Airbus's Annual Press Conference around the middle of January.
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, RR: 10 Reply 225, posted (4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16015 times:
Slightly off topic but relevant as well; does the A380 have a high cargo capacity by weight compared to that available by space? Given its magnificent wings and four engines, surely it must be able to lift some heavy and expensive shizzle regardless of the fact that it can't carry massive amounts of low value but space taking product. The 748i and 77W may have a lot more space available in their bellies for cargo, but what are they able to lift compared to the A388?
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2760 posts, RR: 10 Reply 227, posted (4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 16678 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 226): In terms of Maximum Structural Payload, the A380-800 is rated to about 93t at the 575t TOW. The 747-8 is rated at 82t and the 777-300ER at 70t.
That's fairly significant. So if you're able to focus on high value and heavy cargo, and lots of passengers, the A388 is definitely the aeroplane for you.
boysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 875 posts, RR: 0 Reply 229, posted (4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 16037 times:
Quoting jet-lagged (Reply 214): Last Friday I was lucky enough to see a couple of AF A380s while transitting CDG. Yes one looked dirty, I was bemused to notice. Seeing it in person from the terminal it looked better than from pictures. And it seemed to me that changing your perspective by taking some steps left and right also affected the aesthetics.
Personally I think the best view is when stood between 4:30 and 5 o'clock relative to the bid bird (or between 7 and 7:30 o'clock obviously).
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 230, posted (4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 15996 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 226): In terms of Maximum Structural Payload, the A380-800 is rated to about 93t at the 575t TOW. The 747-8 is rated at 82t and the 777-300ER at 70t.
If you subscribe to the belief the A380-800 seats about 100 more pax than the 747-8, then the MSP delta doesn't look all that noteworthy:
A388 - 110kg x 525 pax = 57.75t
748 - 110kg x 425 pax = 46.75t
77W - 110kg x 340 pax = 37.4t
The remaining capability for revenue cargo under the max-zero-fuel line is identical for the A388 and 748 (35.25t) and is not far off for the 77W (32.6t).
airlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 232, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 14721 times:
this has been on the forum for some time now and we have not heard of what this significant order really is? anybody with inside information to enlighten us all who this is going to be?
redzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 276 posts, RR: 0 Reply 233, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13961 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 230): The remaining capability for revenue cargo under the max-zero-fuel line is identical for the A388 and 748 (35.25t) and is not far off for the 77W (32.6t).
Let me make sure that I understand--These numbers are just loading up the aircraft to max payload with no fuel on board? So if the 3 planes were all flying the same route, and were each fueled accordingly, then after boarding the passenger numbers you give plus the necessary fuel, the remaining cargo capacity is going to look very different, correct? The A388 will require more fuel than the 748 for most missions, and so the 748 will have more available cargo capacity, even though the pre-fuel capacity is identical. The 77W takes less fuel than either VLA, so the capacity gap will shrink after fueling. Am I interpretting correctly? Does the 77W actually end up with more available cargo capacity than the two larger planes for some missions? Thanks for being patient with me.
Am i correct in saying, If you load them up with cargo to full capacity than they are not going to fly the brochure ranges as advertised by Boeing and Airbus.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 235, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13642 times:
Quoting travelhound (Reply 234): Am i correct in saying, If you load them up with cargo to full capacity than they are not going to fly the brochure ranges as advertised by Boeing and Airbus.
The brochure ranges are with a full compliment of passengers and their bags so yes, if you add revenue cargo on top of that, range will be less.
The A380-800 with an 85t payload is good for about 6600nm. The 747-8 with an 82t payload is good for about 5900nm and the 777-300ER with a 70t payload is good for about 5700nm. These figures are for no winds aloft and at OEM spec OEW.
I'm looking at a non-restricted route for the three aircraft.
Here are some basic assumptions for the mission:
Stage Length - 4,000 nm.
Passenger + their bags weight - 110 kg
Load factor - 100%
Seats: (I guessed here at comparable layouts, so may be not quite apples-to-apples)
- A388 - 525
- 748 - 425
- 77W - 340
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 46 posts, 
.. but let's first hope it's from a new customer, rather than a top-up order
)
From Singapore, joined Apr 2006, 230 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5341 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2011, 90 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 290 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 267 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 271 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 102 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2012, 117 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, 
Bombarding LHR with A380's .
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 119 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1327 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1709 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 422 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined Dec 2012, 208 posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2005, 54 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4847 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1444 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 886 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2228 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 612 posts, 
From China, joined Sep 2000, 698 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22721 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1102 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2008, 111 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2310 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 262 posts, 
From El Salvador, joined Dec 2012, 89 posts,