Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Seeks To Counter Luxury Image Of A380  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25197 posts, RR: 48
Posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 23513 times:

With weak sales, Airbus says is seeks to repositioning the A380 from a luxury flagship in the eyes of airlines to a high-density workhorse.

Airbus has begun pitching the aircraft in configurations as high as 558 passengers, and also can offer an additional 30 seats on top of that by introducing 11-seat abreast configuration.

Airbus is telling prospective buyers the denser layouts that would cut unit costs and lift margins, with such configurations working well in markets like intra-Asian routes, or trips between the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.


Great idea if you ask me. The A380 needs to viewed more as a general purpose "airbus" not a one off niche queen of the fleet toy for airlines.


Story:
Airbus Pushes Higher-Density A380 to Counter Luxury Image
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-as-luxury-image-blunts-sales.html

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9617 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 23268 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Airbus is telling prospective buyers the denser layouts that would cut unit costs and lift margins, with such configurations working well in markets like intra-Asian routes, or trips between the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.

How close is India to opening up operations to allowing the A380?



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11388 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 23197 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Airbus has begun pitching the aircraft in configurations as high as 558 passengers, and also can offer an additional 30 seats on top of that by introducing 11-seat abreast configuration.

Airbus made optimizations to the cabin and now uses "slimline" seats which increases the seat count from 525 to 558. And 11-abreast should increase it further to 588 seats.

We had a similar thread last month:

Airbus Revises A380 Layout (by KarelXWB Jun 6 2013 in Civil Aviation)

Here is the seat map again:

http://oi41.tinypic.com/10ihqms.jpg

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Great idea if you ask me.

Well, the trend of pushing more seats into the aircraft has now reached the A380 too.

[Edited 2013-07-25 10:35:11]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
We had a similar thread last month:

We did. And frankly this seems to be a re-hash.

What I find curious is that Airbus don't force the airlines to offer configurations from 407 to 525.

And the comments about EK backing away from the 2-class A380 - I'm not convinced they're true. Last year Tim Clark said the delay was at the request of Airbus.

It's interesting that despite the "stupendous" CASM of 11-across, EK still think 10-across is a better solution for them.
I don't think that the biggest user's ambition is to walk away from the luxury image   

"Short and patchy" seems an interesting representation of a backlog which (including Dorics 20 and LH's 2) is the equivalent of 6 years production at what seems to be the target rate of 30 per year.

What does that make the A330's 2 1/2 year backlog? Or the 777's 3 1/2 year?

Either way, I suppose it doesn't hurt for Airbus to emphasize the flexibility of the platform

Rgds


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2788 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22818 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
With weak sales, Airbus says is seeks to repositioning the A380 from a luxury flagship in the eyes of airlines to a high-density workhorse.

I think this kind of needed to happen at some point. Yeah the luxury status is cool and has clearly sold some planes, but luxury also comes with the idea of high cost, high maintenance, and high depreciation. The workhouse status should sell some airframes. But now the problem becomes who needs an airplane with 558 seats. I can't imagine there are a ton of routes that can sustain that amount of seats, especially on a daily basis.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11388 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22782 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 4):
But now the problem becomes who needs an airplane with 558 seats.

Those extra seats are coming almost "free", no problem if you can't fill them but more revenue if you can.

[Edited 2013-07-25 11:12:09]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22725 times:

If they want to sell the A380 as a high density aircraft, I think they should offer the lower deck on a 10 abreast config and the upper with a premium economy and a microscopic 18 to 24 business class, good for 600 to 630 pax.

A lot of people I know like the lower deck of the a380 not because the seats are big (they are not) but the Airplane doesnt feel claustrophobic, and because of the lower noise at cruise. A long flight on a Economy plus on the top deck at 30% premium I am sure will sell, maybe not at the beggining but later on people will think do I fly on a cramped a330 /777 or I pay a little more to fly more comfortable?

Then again I am just thinking people are not cheapos...and reality may prove me wrong...

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22721 times:

To 11 abreast I say no. Clearly in that configuration they still have a deck almost entirely composed of first and business seats, that is pretty luxurious ! Have 6-8 F, 20-30 J (or 50 J no F), then you can have more than 600 Y without compromising on comfort.

[Edited 2013-07-25 12:18:57]


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2788 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22655 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 5):
Those extra seats are coming almost "free", no problem if you can't fill them but more revenue if you can.

While I do understand that, in the current configuration there aren't a whole lot of routes where they can deploy the aircraft. I know EK makes it work (which blows my mind) along with LH and AF, but how many long haul routes really need 450 seats a day. Airlines will get them and view those seats as free, but they will probably end up discounting all the seats to fill the airplane. Not to mention if you are only filling those last 50 seats occasionally you are wasting money because of the additional F/A.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22636 times:

11Y is inevitable. Like the 747 in the early 1970s (which was 9Y at first), the A380 is currently a novelty that can draw a revenue premium. That won't last long, and when it ends, A380s will need to be 11Y in order to deal with internal competition from the A350-1000 and external competition from the 777-9X.

User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 22439 times:

I don't get it, why not just do ~650 Y seats, 325 upper and 325 lower, and create economy premium leg room and pitch and advertise the heck out of it. It would be the best economy product on the market. While everyone else is cramming seats in as tight as they get you'de be able to offer something unrivaled in terms of space and pitch for an Economy class. And at peak demand if the advertising is right and you can clearly show passengers that they are paying economy fares for something WAY better than any other airline, I would seriously not doubt that they could fill up a 380 daily out of most of the major destinations. And sure they might not have rights to the sub continent but they still have to transport the pax USA-DXB or EU-DXB, and that's the longer of the legs, that's the sector that counts.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13039 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When will we have a 2-class A380? IMHO, EK should go for a reduced premium (say 4 to 6 F, say 50J, and the rest Y) for their next A380. I've read just enough about a proposed new 777 configuration for EK with 4F, reduced J (but how many?) and the space utilized for Y. That makes sense IMHO. Just as a reduced premium A380 would make sense for them.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 1):
How close is India to opening up operations to allowing the A380?

   They are not opening up airports to the A380 despite several being A380 ready or so close that the gates would be fixed before service would start. But India is not ready for the competition. They like the clause in their bilaterals "Nothing larger than a 747 or 400 seats."

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
What does that make the A330's 2 1/2 year backlog? Or the 777's 3 1/2 year?

6 years is too long of a backlog for the A380. They must accelerate production to move units. For the A330, short leads times have helped sell planes. The same was true on the 777 (Boeing almost had to slow the line.) As to names, how about "Itchy and Scratchy?"  
Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 8):
but how many long haul routes really need 450 seats a day.

How much hubbing? LH, AF, KE, and EK/FZ do not plan to fill the planes on O&D. They plan to connect passengers. EK's goal is to feed a flight with ten passengers each from 20 cities.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
the A380 is currently a novelty that can draw a revenue premium. That won't last long, and when it ends, A380s will need to be 11Y in order to deal with internal competition from the A350-1000 and external competition from the 777-9X.

   First slimline seats... then 11 across.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11388 posts, RR: 33
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22409 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 10):
I don't get it, why not just do ~650 Y seats

This is just a default configuration. If someone wants 650 seats, I'm sure they can have it.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1011 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 22285 times:

Is this advertising really aimed at aircraft purchasers at airlines? I'd imagine if you were in the procurement department you'd be familiar with the capabilities of the A380 in different configurations.

[Edited 2013-07-25 12:04:50]

User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 21998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
11Y is inevitable.

Maybe one day. But the planes currently flying are SO far away from their potential capacity at 10-abreast it just looks a long long way away to me. I know others will argue differently

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
When will we have a 2-class A380?

When Airbus finally get the headroom in cabin outfitting I hope.
For what its worth I predict we'll see 650 seat 2-class configs LONG before we see 11-abreast

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 11):
6 years is too long of a backlog for the A380.

You and I agree on this too.   

Rgds


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21474 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
Here is the seat map again:

J class seat pitch is completely unrealistic. Carriers have been moving away from 'angled-flat' seats for years.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1585 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20785 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
11Y is inevitable.

Why shouldn't Airbus have a plane as uncomfortable as Boeing's 10 across 77W?

Honestly, I shudder at the thought of 11 across on an A-380. Can you imagine being stuck in that middle seat??


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20339 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Great idea if you ask me. The A380 needs to viewed more as a general purpose "airbus" not a one off niche queen of the fleet toy for airlines.

Meh.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
What I find curious is that Airbus don't force the airlines to offer configurations from 407 to 525.

Exactly. To me this is a bit of a nonsense article.

Quoting Prost (Reply 13):
I'd imagine if you were in the procurement department you'd be familiar with the capabilities of the A380 in different configurations.

My thoughts too.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
Here is the seat map again:

J class seat pitch is completely unrealistic. Carriers have been moving away from 'angled-flat' seats for years.

Before anyone says anything, only AF and LH...those stalwarts of J class bleeding-edge comfort...so far have J seat pitches of 55 in. and 57-60 in. 'angled-flat' seats. The only other carriers with firm orders likely to use them are UN and BC, for a grand total of 39 frames out of 262. Maybe UU, if they take delivery  , for 2 more frames.

What we probably will see, are A388s with say 6-8F/40-50J/~530Y for ~575 pax, or 40J/~600Y for ~640 pax, before 11-abreast.



oh boy!!!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 20244 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 17):
Before anyone says anything, only AF and LH...those stalwarts of J class bleeding-edge comfort...so far have J seat pitches of 55 in. and 57-60 in. 'angled-flat' seats.

They're also the two carriers operating the A380 beyond 500 seats.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19551 times:

My mother is in her seventies, and even she notices the difference between the 'awful' ten across 777 and the 'much nicer' A380. The everyday passenger appreciates the experience.

User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19519 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 19):
My mother is in her seventies, and even she notices the difference between the 'awful' ten across 777 and the 'much nicer' A380. The everyday passenger appreciates the experience.

The question isn't whether she notices, it's whether she'd pay 10%+ more for a ticket.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25197 posts, RR: 48
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 19318 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
11Y is inevitable.

  

I well remember 9 abreast 747s, 8 abreast DC-10/L-1011s, etc.

But as market realities dictated, so came the denser configs.

I think its very good Airbus trying to show another side of the A380 to the market as it can only help its sale case, and get airlines to think of the machine as a tool more than a VIP liner.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 17):
Meh.

Might not be sexy, but the game is based on dollar and cents.

The A380 needs to show it can do more and be that day to day workhorse earning its keep. Move beyond the flagship sales pitch.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 19):
The everyday passenger appreciates the experience.

Sure they appreciate it, but are they willing to pay extra for it?

At the end of the day, this is a commodity industry, and if the numbers pencil out better with tighter configuration, so it is.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17721 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 16):
Honestly, I shudder at the thought of 11 across on an A-380. Can you imagine being stuck in that middle seat??

If 11Y would be 3x5x3 I suppose it would be no different than Y in the old DC-10 and L-1011 or AA's "original" Y class in the 772 (2x5x2).


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1585 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 17085 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 22):
If 11Y would be 3x5x3 I suppose it would be no different than Y in the old DC-10 and L-1011 or AA's "original" Y class in the 772 (2x5x2).

Exactly - awful configuration when the plane is full! Wasn't the DC-10 2-5-2?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3401 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16987 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
EK still think 10-across is a better solution for them.

Payload and standardization is 2 reasons. Having *some* room for cargo left is likely another. That said, shouldn't be that long before they break into a new batch of A380 and open up the possiblity for a new interior configuration without making Airbus cry (and present a large bill for services). I imagine that the low price EK gets is dependant on minimal if any configuration changes within each order.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17450 posts, RR: 46
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 17505 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
The A380 needs to show it can do more and be that day to day workhorse earning its keep. Move beyond the flagship sales pitch.

This sounds more like a last ditch effort than anything--why would carriers in this day and age look to buy a 'flagship', outside of a few obvious misfires? And why wouldn't those airlines have considered a more efficient layout anyway? Airlines are challenged finding large enough markets in the current relatively light layout, never mind something more dense.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
With weak sales, Airbus says is seeks to repositioning the A380 from a luxury flagship in the eyes of airlines to a high-density workhorse.

I think the key here is "weak sales". The 787 was marketed as a 'luxury flagship' but everyone and their mother knew the luxurious layouts were hogwash.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17140 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 25):
I think the key here is "weak sales".

Have to agree - neither the A380 or the B748 are selling in any numbers worth talking about.

I think also that 'increasing engine power' comes into it. 'Big twins' are now close to being able to carry almost as many people as the jumbos can - offering big savings in terms of reduced engine maintenance costs etc., greater flexibility, and very possibly 'per passenger' fuel savings as well? I'm old enough to remember the days when any sort of 'longhaul' - even 'just' London-New York - almost always meant a 747?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16888 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
Might not be sexy, but the game is based on dollar and cents.

The A380 needs to show it can do more and be that day to day workhorse earning its keep. Move beyond the flagship sales pitch.

Yes I agree with you about the dollars, but this 'seat count game' has been going on at Airbus and Boeing for at least since the early 90s when the B747-400 rose to dominance, and Airbus introduced the A330/340. They both release completely unrealistic charts when they know carriers are likely to use more floor space on premium cabins.

It is not to be forgotten that carriers who do make J/F work, make a heck of a lot of money on it.

To me this is just a natural progression, nothing more, it is not Airbus "trying to reinvent their product marketing for more sales." Look at the B747-400 introduction, and when it was at its height in the world's fleets. Many carriers, like BA, had multiple configurations with varying F/J/Y capacities.

Furthermore, whenever a new widebody is introduced into a fleet, it is going on a "prestige" route. I wouldn't have expected AF to put the A380 on CDG-SXM and configure it for 650 pax for their first flight... Nor will BA put the A380 on PHX or BKK first.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7496 posts, RR: 18
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15443 times:

Here's my thoughts given BC taking delivery of 350-seat A380s-
1) try to figure out how to use the space better, if I were Airbus.
2) Talk to EK about downplaying its role (EK is seen as a luxurious airline in the mind of consumers)
3) try to sell more to BC (maybe) or other smaller airlines in the Asian rim

If airbus does this, maybe the 380 reputation would be changed a bit.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11388 posts, RR: 33
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15457 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 15):
J class seat pitch is completely unrealistic. Carriers have been moving away from 'angled-flat' seats for years.

Agreed. The 525 3-class cabin configuration uses a more realistic J pitch, so if we remove the 8 extra J seats the total number should be 550 seats.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 27):
To me this is just a natural progression, nothing more, it is not Airbus "trying to reinvent their product marketing for more sales."

 checkmark 

[Edited 2013-07-26 00:18:14]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14870 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 16):
Honestly, I shudder at the thought of 11 across on an A-380. Can you imagine being stuck in that middle seat??

In the middle seat you have 2 seats between you and the aisle, same as in many window seats.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 22):
If 11Y would be 3x5x3 I suppose it would be no different than Y in the old DC-10 and L-1011 or AA's "original" Y class in the 772 (2x5x2).

Exactly.

I'm not advocating 11, just want to note that it wouldn't be something unseen before or totally unbearable.


User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14692 times:

11 abreast?? That would put it on my no fly list :P

User currently offlineDUSint From Germany, joined Apr 2013, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13828 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 20):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 19):
My mother is in her seventies, and even she notices the difference between the 'awful' ten across 777 and the 'much nicer' A380. The everyday passenger appreciates the experience.

The question isn't whether she notices, it's whether she'd pay 10%+ more for a ticket.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 19):
The everyday passenger appreciates the experience.

Sure they appreciate it, but are they willing to pay extra for it?

But is this really true and necessary?
To me, it seems logical that it would be enough they book a ticket with the airlines operating the A380 - there is just no need to charge 10%+ more because of the very good economics of the 380. If the 380 draws a crowd of customers, everything is fine for the operating airline, no?


User currently offlinelhrnue From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13582 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Airbus has begun pitching the aircraft in configurations as high as 558 passengers, and also can offer an additional 30 seats on top of that by introducing 11-seat abreast configuration.

Airbus is telling prospective buyers the denser layouts that would cut unit costs and lift margins, with such configurations working well in markets like intra-Asian routes, or trips between the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.

And that need to get pitched by Airbus ... the airlines can't work this out themselves?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4723 posts, RR: 39
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
Either way, I suppose it doesn't hurt for Airbus to emphasize the flexibility of the platform

That can never hurt. And if it creates new sales, it is only a good thing.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 5):
Those extra seats are coming almost "free", no problem if you can't fill them but more revenue if you can.

Which is the concept behind the A380.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
Maybe one day. But the planes currently flying are SO far away from their potential capacity at 10-abreast it just looks a long long way away to me.

Same here. The planes make money for their operators, even with these spacious seating layouts. There is much to be won there before you really need to go 11 abreast.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
Might not be sexy, but the game is based on dollar and cents.

The A380 needs to show it can do more and be that day to day workhorse earning its keep.

   And I think it is perfectly capable in doing so.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 31):
11 abreast?? That would put it on my no fly list

At 11 abreast the A380 will still offer wider seats then the B777 (or the even the B777X, assuming they are in a 10 abreast configuration). I guess these planes are (or will be) on your no fly-list as well?  

[Edited 2013-07-26 02:35:33]

User currently offlinepa747sp From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12828 times:

Removing F/J seats to fit more Y seats in isn't going to make the aircraft more profitable. Yields are higher in F/J. For most airlines the the equation is 'what is the minimum number of Y seats / maximum number of J/F seats we can configure to return the best yield'. Y class pays the cost of operation. J/F makes the money. Filling an aircraft full of Y class pax is easy. Making a decent yield from them is much harder.


Nothing seems as good since the VC10.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11703 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Airbus has begun pitching the aircraft in configurations as high as 558 passengers, and also can offer an additional 30 seats on top of that by introducing 11-seat abreast configuration.
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Great idea if you ask me. The A380 needs to viewed more as a general purpose "airbus" not a one off niche queen of the fleet toy for airlines.

How many routes would support a 558 seat aircraft year round that would justify the aircraft?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
What I find curious is that Airbus don't force the airlines to offer configurations from 407 to 525.

Airbus is not in a position to force anything on its customers. The need to respond to the market not force anything on it, or Boeing would just offer what the airlines are desiring.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 25):
I think the key here is "weak sales". The 787 was marketed as a 'luxury flagship' but everyone and their mother knew the luxurious layouts were hogwash.

Excellent point.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 33):
And that need to get pitched by Airbus ... the airlines can't work this out themselves?

Smacks of desperation on Airbus part, trying to reinvent the wheel to get sales.

These layouts have been available all along and airlines have fitted them out subject to their requirements. If they had wanted to put more seats in they would have done.


User currently offlinelapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1564 posts, RR: 7
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10354 times:

Surely the airlines know what the passenger certification is of the A380, it's up to them how they decide how to fit in what passengers they want to, not Airbus.

User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3198 posts, RR: 9
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10301 times:

What I find amusing about this thread is that I would have titled it, 'Airbus to market the A380 for its flexibility' or somesuch. Others focus consistently on the negative.


come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10111 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 39):
I would have titled it, 'Airbus to market the A380 for its flexibility' or somesuch. Others focus consistently on the negative.

To be fair, motorhussy, they only sold nine of them last year, and none at all so far this year. Boeing are in similar case with the 748 (except for freighters).

You can be optimistic (and say that it's a temporary glitch); or pessimistic (and say that the age of the four-engine jumbo is over and done with). But what you can't say is that both the major firms have no problems with the apparently-collapsing market for their big fours?

[Edited 2013-07-26 06:51:54]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9813 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40):
To be fair, motorhussy, they only sold nine of them last year, and none at all so far this year.

Assuming that the Doric MOU will not be firmed. I would not base my assumptions on that, if I wanted to be fair.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 935 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9442 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 37):
These layouts have been available all along and airlines have fitted them out subject to their requirements. If they had wanted to put more seats in they would have done.

It might be the case the higher density seating layouts now being proposed by Airbus only became viable with the introduction of the relatively new High Gross Weight variants.

So in real terms this might be a case of the A380 now being more capable of meeting different market segments rather than Airbus trying to flog a dead horse.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9455 times:

Quoting Unflug (Reply 41):
Assuming that the Doric MOU will not be firmed.

I'm sure that Doric won't have to 'firm' them unless and until they've signed up lessees, Unflug. That's just 'Business - Lesson One'?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 24):
Payload and standardization is 2 reasons. Having *some* room for cargo left is likely another

That they want to differentiate their "luxury" A380's from their "cattle" 777's is clearly another  
Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
Airbus is not in a position to force anything on its customers. The need to respond to the market not force anything on it,

And I don't see any customers asking for higher seating in 3-class - yet.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 37):
These layouts have been available all along and airlines have fitted them out subject to their requirements. If they had wanted to put more seats in they would have done.

Agree

Quoting Unflug (Reply 41):
Assuming that the Doric MOU will not be firmed. I would not base my assumptions on that, if I wanted to be fair.

don't worry. Just remember what a complete dick he's going to look when the orders become firm :

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43):
I'm sure that Doric won't have to 'firm' them unless and until they've signed up lessees

Just like any other lessor eh? LOL


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9251 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43):
I'm sure that Doric won't have to 'firm' them unless and until they've signed up lessees, Unflug. That's just 'Business - Lesson One'?

I'm equally sure they haven't signed the MOU just for fun. Business lesson Two.


User currently offlineNeutronStar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8917 times:

So much for all the talk from posters saying the A380 is a "prestige" aircraft.  

Airbus is (quite rightfully) doing the smart thing: Emphasize the plane as an efficient people hauler. Its obvious the other marketing gimmick was losing steam real quick.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
What I find curious is that Airbus don't force the airlines to offer configurations from 407 to 525.

That's a pretty laughable statement. "Force" your customers to operate in a way you want them to? I can only imagine the negotiations:

Airbus: thanks for buying this expensive aircraft. You are prohibited from operating it with less than 407 passengers.
Airline: Yeah, uh thanks. But GFY. I will offer a cabin configuration of 30 passengers if I feel like it. And I'll let those passengers use crayons on the walls to order drinks. What are you gonna do about it? It's my plane now.

Yeah...force them to do something....that will work.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8916 times:

Quoting Unflug (Reply 45):
I'm equally sure they haven't signed the MOU just for fun. Business lesson Two.

Slice it any way you want, it's basically an option, not a binding commitment.

Put it this way, Unflug. In the past six months or so, Boeing haven't sold any 748s (except maybe the odd freighter) and Airbus haven't sold any A380s.

Time will tell as to whether, in marketing terms, that's just a temporary 'trend,' or an enduring 'demand shift'?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8638 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 46):
That's a pretty laughable statement. "Force" your customers to operate in a way you want them to? I can only imagine the negotiations:

You'll have to explain why my comment is laughable when you clearly agree with it.
I think you lost something in the translation.

Airbus clearly don't, and can't, force their customers to do anything.
My curiosity comes from all the conversations about how "the A380 will have to pay its way by becoming a cattle car" which clearly fly against the desire of current operators to differentiate their A380 product - no-one is asking for 560-590 seat 3-class configurations that I'm aware of.

I completely get that Airbus can't force their customers to do anything. But d'you know what? neither can A-net posters.

Rgds


User currently offlineNeutronStar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8284 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
What I find curious is that Airbus don't force the airlines to offer configurations from 407 to 525.

I find that statement laughable, because of "what it states." I don't think I lost anything in translation unless you were being sarcastic!

You and I agree that the A380 is an efficient people hauler, but to "force" them to operate in the way you stated just won't work.

I think people are saying that the best way for the A380 to "pay its way" is that pressure will inevitably rise from very efficient twin widebodies, forcing the A380 to justify its existence by "cattling" up more passengers. Eventually, the market (777x, 787 and A350) will force the airlines to cram more seats into the A380 to justify any purchase for the aircraft.

But Tim Clark ain't changing anything, and no one else is either, so they are happy with how the plane performs. I think Airbus is getting unhappy with the trends they see for the aircraft, hence to push to larger capacities.


User currently offlineWesternDC6B From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 380 is, in coach, already a flying cattle-car as it is; that is hardly luxury. 31" pitch and 10 across, and soon 11 across is still 31" pitch and 10 or 11 across no matter the aircraft. Cramped is cramped. The only thing the 380 has is the gee-whiz factor of being a double-decker. So is a London bus.

Image is a function of the airline, not the maker of the aircraft. I am sure that - back in 1955 - folks riding in a TWA Super Connie across the Atlantic had a far more favorable view of the aircraft than soldiers jammed into the same type of aircraft flown by MATS.



Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8040 times:

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 49):
pressure will inevitably rise from very efficient twin widebodies, forcing the A380 to justify its existence by "cattling" up more passengers.

  

The A380 has a huge advantage against current smaller widebodies in terms of operating cost per square meter of passenger floor space. That will be whittled away by the A350-1000, 787-10, and 777-9X.


User currently offlineRGFC From Italy, joined Jul 2013, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7531 times:

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 50):
The 380 is, in coach, already a flying cattle-car as it is; that is hardly luxury. 31" pitch and 10 across, and soon 11 across is still 31" pitch and 10 or 11 across no matter the aircraft. Cramped is cramped.

In my opinion it is not a matter of being a luxury aircraft for passengers, which the A380 certainly isn't (at least in coach), but of being a luxury aircraft for airlines: if you want to be a truly 'successful' airline, you need to fly the A380 to create 'image' (and to show that you have enough passengers to fill it)


User currently offlineWesternDC6B From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7505 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RGFC (Reply 52):
In my opinion it is not a matter of being a luxury aircraft for passengers, which the A380 certainly isn't (at least in coach), but of being a luxury aircraft for airlines

Bingo! This is a 21st century replay of the airlines hopping on the 747 bandwagon. "We have one, too!" Look where it got them.



Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7299 times:

I'm not sure Airbus ever intended a luxury label to the A380. If it had, surely airlines would be charging a premium to fly it.

As far as I'm aware, on my travels with the A380, no airline charges more for the A380 ticket compared to the 777 or other aircraft on the route.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17450 posts, RR: 46
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7168 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 51):
The A380 has a huge advantage against current smaller widebodies in terms of operating cost per square meter of passenger floor space.

I'm not sure how much an advantage that is turning out to be in practice--EK's 2012 op margin was a paltry 3%, and they have a lot more going for them than most other 380 operators.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 7015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 49):
I find that statement laughable, because of "what it states." I don't think I lost anything in translation unless you were being sarcastic!

I think you didn't catch it in the context it was intended.

I found the comments of the article curious because Airbus don't force their customers to offer the configurations they do

rgds


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 55):
I'm not sure how much an advantage that is turning out to be in practice--EK's 2012 op margin was a paltry 3%, and they have a lot more going for them than most other 380 operators.
EK is not making use of the A380's floor space advantage, because their 3-class A380 layout is quite a bit less dense than any of their 777 layouts. This is why I'm saying that eventually A380 operators will be forced to use the floor space the same way it is used on other aircraft... which implies 11Y.

[Edited 2013-07-26 10:55:26]

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6752 posts, RR: 32
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 6770 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 48):
You'll have to explain why my comment is laughable when you clearly agree with it.

The comment is laughable because it raises a ridiculous strawman:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 3):
What I find curious is that Airbus don't force the airlines to offer configurations from 407 to 525.

That the referenced article somehow implies that the various A380 operators chose their current configurations because somehow Airbus forced them to do so, which is clearly not the case.

Returning to fact, it is true that Airbus's initial marketing of the A380 did imply that it would usher in a new era of luxurious amenities, with onboard gyms, boutiques, Jacuzzis, casinos, showers, etc. And I believe the high degree of cabin customizability was geared to carriers offering premium products. Of course, airlines offered things like lounges and pianos on previous generation aircraft like the 747-100, DC-10, and L-1011. Back when onboard gyms, boutiques, and casinos were mooted, some of us argued that ultimately we'd see airlines choose to just cram more seats into the beast. And IMO we are now seeing Airbus pivot its marketing to that use case as the likely customers for high-luxe A380's have nearly all ordered or taken a pass.

There lies the point: the spacious configurations currently in use don't match the business models of more budget-minded carriers -- so even with the wealth of operating data on hand at this point, it still may be a tough sell for those carriers without new data models aimed at their businesses.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 5):
Those extra seats are coming almost "free", no problem if you can't fill them but more revenue if you can.

That isn't entirely true because revenue management doesn't allow a carrier to practice perfect price discrimination. If a carrier lowers fares by 100 dollars/euros to help fill those seats, they will almost certainly sell some of those seats to customers who were willing to pay the higher price.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 25):
The 787 was marketed as a 'luxury flagship' but everyone and their mother knew the luxurious layouts were hogwash.

   Almost all those 8-across 787 layouts have not come to pass.


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6568 times:

And more pax means more baggage so less cargo space. The A380 is already very restricted on cargo capacity and this would only increase the problem.

What makes more money, cargo or economy pax?

[Edited 2013-07-26 13:06:52]

User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 6550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ScottB (Reply 58):
That the referenced article somehow implies that the various A380 operators chose their current configurations because somehow Airbus forced them to do so, which is clearly not the case

Of course. Because I'd clearly want to advance that argument wouldn't i ...  

Ah well. I suppose I shouldn't expect better from an A380 thread


User currently offlinexlc From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 50):
The 380 is, in coach, already a flying cattle-car as it is; that is hardly luxury. 31" pitch and 10 across, and soon 11 across is still 31" pitch and 10 or 11 across no matter the aircraft. Cramped is cramped. The only thing the 380 has is the gee-whiz factor of being a double-decker. So is a London bus.
Quoting RGFC (Reply 52):
In my opinion it is not a matter of being a luxury aircraft for passengers, which the A380 certainly isn't (at least in coach), but of being a luxury aircraft for airlines: if you want to be a truly 'successful' airline, you need to fly the A380 to create 'image' (and to show that you have enough passengers to fill it)

Both of these statements are dead on. Look who bought them: (1) up-and-coming airlines with inferiority complexes and (2) waning empires clinging to past glory.

If it was all about moving a lot of people for the lowest cost, I think we know who'd be buying them.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 6316 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 59):
What makes more money, cargo or economy pax?

Big difference is that cargo only moves one way. Almost all passengers travel round trip. It's common for routes that generate a lot of cargo revenue to be full in one direction and almost empty in the other direction, which is almost never the case for passenger traffic.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 881 posts, RR: 10
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6137 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
How many routes would support a 558 seat aircraft year round that would justify the aircraft?

I think it is a misconception that airlines have to fill all their seats year-round. Airlines make a lot of money by having capacity available during periods of peak demand....


User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 51):

I think some of this PR may very well be a way of positioning the A380 up-market a pinch to offer more of a CASM cushion with the coming twins. It makes the frame more compelling for airlines out shopping for something bigger.

I know that it's just PR, and that airlines already "know" this, but it gets people at the airlines talking more and keeps the program sounding relevant and in demand (which it largely is).

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5795 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 64):
I think some of this PR may very well be a way of positioning the A380 up-market a pinch to offer more of a CASM cushion with the coming twins. It makes the frame more compelling for airlines out shopping for something bigger.

I think that's exactly what it is   

Rgds


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5752 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 23):
Wasn't the DC-10 2-5-2?

Yes. And I had the misfortune of sitting in the middle of the 5 section once on a full UA flight ORD-SFO. I just buried my head in my hands for most of the 4 hours waiting for the flight to end.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 26):
I'm old enough to remember the days when any sort of 'longhaul' - even 'just' London-New York - almost always meant a 747?

Me too, but I think that era (70s/80s) will never happen again, despite all the projections of tens of millions more people that will be flying in the coming decades - at least for the USA airlines. Smaller planes (737 MAX and A32S NEO) and more frequency will be the favored approach here (leading of course to even worse congestion and delays).


User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5550 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 65):
I think that's exactly what it is

Well.....this must be my lucky day.  
Quoting N62NA (Reply 66):
Yes. And I had the misfortune of sitting in the middle of the 5 section once on a full UA flight ORD-SFO. I just buried my head in my hands for most of the 4 hours waiting for the flight to end.

I am fortunate that all of my many DC10 rides were in the 70's to early 80's - all 2-4-2.   My one 747 flight in the 70's was 2-4-3 - I consider myself lucky.  

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlinecuriousflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5420 times:

Nothing wrong with 11 abreast... as far as it is clear that it is a tight cabin. Just tell me in advance so I know not to book an economy flight with that airline.

It is all about offering passengers what they are ready to pay for. Some will pay $1000 for 11 abreast, some will add $100 for 10 abreast, some will add $400 for 8 abreast, some will ad $900 for 6 abreast, and some will add $2000 for 4 abreast...


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5416 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 66):
Smaller planes (737 MAX and A32S NEO) and more frequency will be the favored approach here (leading of course to even worse congestion and delays).

Plus, of course, what one could call the 'midsize twins,' 787s and A350s.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5049 times:

Won´t a need for higher density arrive naturally with traffic growth? If you fall short of selling all seats at a good price today, what about in 5 years´time? I say that because if you order any aircraft today, traffic should have grown substantially by the time you put it into service.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11388 posts, RR: 33
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
How many routes would support a 558 seat aircraft year round that would justify the aircraft?

The question is not "how many 558-seat routes are there" but it's about generating more revenue on existing routes. For example, if you have an 500-class A380 seater with annual load factors between 80 and 100%, you might be interested in those 25 extra "free" seats because they will generate more revenue during peak season.

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 50):
The 380 is, in coach, already a flying cattle-car as it is; that is hardly luxury. 31" pitch and 10 across, and soon 11 across is still 31" pitch and 10 or 11 across no matter the aircraft. Cramped is cramped. The only thing the 380 has is the gee-whiz factor of being a double-decker. So is a London bus.

Nothing wrong with 10-abreast if the seat cushions are 18" wide IMO. Agreed on the seat pitch, but that differs per airline.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 59):
What makes more money, cargo or economy pax?

Pax. Airlines always choose more pax numbers over cargo space.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 26):
'Big twins' are now close to being able to carry almost as many people as the jumbos can

Lol, 400 seats (777X) versus 525/550 seats (A380) is still a big difference. That's like saying you can put the A330 numbers into an A320.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 63):
I think it is a misconception that airlines have to fill all their seats year-round. Airlines make a lot of money by having capacity available during periods of peak demand....

  
Quoting lhrnue (Reply 33):
And that need to get pitched by Airbus ... the airlines can't work this out themselves?

The manufacturer wants to demonstrate what his airplane is capable of, nothing wrong here. Also, this new cabin configuration is aimed at new customers. A new customer might walk away if Airbus can only offer luxury cabin options.

[Edited 2013-07-27 14:35:41]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 50):
The 380 is, in coach, already a flying cattle-car as it is; that is hardly luxury. 31" pitch and 10 across, and soon 11 across is still 31" pitch and 10 or 11 across no matter the aircraft. Cramped is cramped. The only thing the 380 has is the gee-whiz factor of being a double-decker. So is a London bus.

10-abreast on the A380 lower deck (the upper deck is 8-abreast) is much better than 10-abreast on a 777. The A380 lower deck cabin is roughly 20 inches wider than a 777, and about 9 inches wider than a 747.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4317 times:

Quoting art (Reply 70):
if you order any aircraft today, traffic should have grown substantially by the time you put it into service.

Or not. This worldwide recession (depression?) is into it's 5th year already.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

Quoting xlc (Reply 61):
Both of these statements are dead on. Look who bought them: (1) up-and-coming airlines with inferiority complexes and (2) waning empires clinging to past glory.

If it was all about moving a lot of people for the lowest cost, I think we know who'd be buying them.

Look at the destinations. Australia seems to be made for the A380, for example, or Dubai or Heathrow.


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 39):

What I find amusing about this thread is that I would have titled it, 'Airbus to market the A380 for its flexibility' or somesuch. Others focus consistently on the negative.

Look at who started the thread and whom the negative comments come from. If you read A380 threads going back months and years, the same names show up, the same detractors. It is relatively obvious.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
Lol, 400 seats (777X) versus 525/550 seats (A380) is still a big difference. That's like saying you can put the A330 numbers into an A320.

Right LOL. There's even an error in the Bloomberg article comparing in service A380 configs to the A3510 stated config. Like I said the "seat count game"...how many 77W's have 365 seats, or whatever Boeing says is a "typical 3-class config", or A3510's will have 350 seats...not many. I'd bet the vast majority of 777-9Xs won't have 400+ seats.

[Edited 2013-07-27 23:23:59]


oh boy!!!
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 75):

Look at who started the thread and whom the negative comments come from. If you read A380 threads going back months and years, the same names show up, the same detractors. It is relatively obvious.

How is that different than any other A or B thread on here? Do you notice that the same people keep starting threads about 787 problems? Or that the same posters show up to shovel more on?

It's a.net as a whole and not just the A380 threads.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 39):
What I find amusing about this thread is that I would have titled it, 'Airbus to market the A380 for its flexibility' or somesuch. Others focus consistently on the negative.

The title of the article is "Airbus Pushes Higher-Density A380 to Counter Luxury Image". The title of the thread is "Airbus Seeks To Counter Luxury Image Of A380". What's the problem?

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2438 posts, RR: 8
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 76):
How is that different than any other A or B thread on here? Do you notice that the same people keep starting threads about 787 problems? Or that the same posters show up to shovel more on?

It's a.net as a whole and not just the A380 threads.

It's not different. I just notice patterns. Re. the 787, most of the threads recently have been about factual events. A few years ago when most of the news was about the horrible production delays, yes I would agree with you...it was ridiculous. I just call a spade a spade.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 76):
The title of the article is "Airbus Pushes Higher-Density A380 to Counter Luxury Image". The title of the thread is "Airbus Seeks To Counter Luxury Image Of A380". What's the problem?

The article itself is silly and contains inaccuracies, to me that signifies bad journalism.



oh boy!!!
User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5504 posts, RR: 29
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 77):
The article itself is silly and contains inaccuracies, to me that signifies bad journalism.

Fine, but Motorhussey was calling out the OP for mistitling it. Clearly that's not the case.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 77):
's not different. I just notice patterns.

Trust me - so do I.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Reading the original article, apart from the first paragraph, it doesn't seem to be a matter of 'countering' any 'luxury image.'

"The European planemaker has begun pitching the double-decker as carrying 558 people, 33 more than the average stated for the past six years, and could add a further 30 berths by introducing 11-abreast seating in coach class. It’s also exploring ways of making the setup more responsive to seasonal variations in traffic.

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders talks about the outlook for Airbus orders and the competition in the wide-body plane market. He speaks from the Paris Air Show with Anna Edwards on Bloomberg Television's "The Pulse." (Source: Bloomberg)
.
“We’re working to optimize the aircraft, and that means giving airlines some ideas to move the capacity up,” Keith Stonestreet, the A380’s marketing director, said in an interview from Toulouse, France, where the jet is built.

Most early buyers splashed out on space and comfort, pigeonholing the jet as a high-end option and thwarting Airbus’s original vision for hundreds of A380s flying between major hubs. Top European carriers British Airways (IAG) and Air France (AF) have ordered only a dozen planes apiece while stocking up on smaller wide-bodies for point-to-point flying, and likely customers including PT Garuda Indonesia (GIAA) have yet to sign up."


To me, that's just common sense on Airbus's part. The 'big twins' are closing in on the 'jumbo' market - and, often enough, two twin-engine 300-plus seaters departing at different times are highly likely to be fuller, and make more money, than a single four-engine departure that has to assemble and board over 500, all at the same time, any time of year?

Just 'evolution,' seems to me. For quite a while the 747/8 (and later the A380) had a near-monopoly on 'long-haul' - because four engines were basically a 'must.' That's over now, two engines are quite enough for virtually any range. And I guess that putting two 'mid-sizes' on a given route, rather than a single jumbo, makes it a lot easier for the airline concerned to 'adjust' for seasonal factors, like demand falling off outside holiday periods?

What it appears to boil down to, in my opinion, is that four engines are no longer necessary for long-haul routes - and, further that, like all other worthy but undoubtedly out-dated features, the aircraft concerned - the B748 and the A380 - will not sell any more, and will just have to be phased out?

[Edited 2013-07-28 06:22:46]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

I simply believe Airbus is just preparing for the Boeing calaims in connection with the 777x launch this autum.

While Beoing will use every chance to rate the 777x as the lowest Fuel consumption per passenger, as usual between the manufacturers the figures are streched. Boeing will use th 9 to 10 abrest now 'snandard' to explain some of the improvements which effects the so far 9 abrest users, however much less the users of already 10 abrest configurations in economy.

Given this paper improvements, airbus obviously starts also making paper improvements by using the 558 standard and as well brings into game the 11 abrest configuration.

So they can show improvements without changing anything with tha plane, as long as they do not exceed the 8xx certified passengers.

I am not sure if any airline believes this game play, neither from Boeing nor Airbus.
We as airliners.net enthusiasts may need a fixed label like the Fuel lables in vehicles or the Nutrition facts label printed on food bags, but probably no one actively working at airlines wants sucha thing, as I do not think they believe much in manufacturing 'paper claims'

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3417 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 73):
Quoting art (Reply 70):
if you order any aircraft today, traffic should have grown substantially by the time you put it into service.

Or not. This worldwide recession (depression?) is into it's 5th year already.

True, recession has been here for years. Sweet spot size of new "replacement" aircraft is larger all the same (eg 787/A350) and forecasts of traffic growth over coming years remain healthy.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3522 posts, RR: 27
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Over the years there have been threads that basically carry the theme, build it bigger, use a bigger plane, or add more seats and the passengers will come.. then there are those that believe all routes should be flown all year with planes suited for the 1/ 2 dozen peak travel periods. People go starry eyed at CASM, yet fail to recompute it for a partially filled a/c.

If we look back on the early 747, airlines used space for amenities that disappeared when load factors went up.. I see no change in that pattern for the A380. I see bedrooms, walled suites, showers, even lay flat seats disappearing when space demand goes up.. it's not like these amenities are the reason for travel although some use them as a airline selection criteria.. and whine if here is a aircraft substitution.. Have seen the same whining when a flight was selected based on the planes paint scheme.. like you can see it once on board.

Sometimes I believe that our common sense about running a business is blinded by people's desire to have instant availability of a commodity that's limited.. in this case mixing fleets of A380s with 777s, 787s and A350s may give the best of both worlds.. high capacity when needed and frequency when capacity isn't so large. I doubt any long range fleet with a complex route structure will subsist long with only one model. Yes some carry on that way, however they are heavily government subsidized.


So if the customers eventually need to jam 11 or 12 abreast seating in and eliminate amenities.. they can do it without Airbus.. the seat tracks are constant.. just change or add seats.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1562 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

What I find amazing is that Airbus has to do anything at all.

Surely airline exec's can figure out what's best for them, and if any changes to the aircraft are required to increase pax numbers, they can pressure Airbus for them.

Further, those airlines which have put a lot of effort and money into marketing their 380's as "luxury" craft, might not be too happy if Airbus starts trying to change the image. I presume however, that any advertising in this regard would not be to the general public.

This is just my own theory, but I think airlines are mostly using the 380 as a 747-400 replacement. So they put a similar ball park number of seats in the 380, and because of it's better efficiency than the 744, they can make it work with the smaller number of potential seats. Then as the pax numbers increase the 380 has the potential (more than the 747) to absorb those extra pax, and still have a decent payload range. So it is the potential of the 380 which is appealing. However the GFC has thrown a spanner in the works, so the pax numbers have not increased to the numbers expected. On top of that the arrival of point to point aircraft, from both manufacturers, will make it difficult for the 380, when numbers do start to accelerate.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinecrj200faguy From United States of America, joined May 2007, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

Air Austral ordered 2 in 840 all economy configuration. I believe they have since cancelled that order.

User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4220 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
And I don't see any customers asking for higher seating in 3-class - yet.

We will probably be seeing that once the economy gets better.

Quoting RGFC (Reply 52):
n my opinion it is not a matter of being a luxury aircraft for passengers, which the A380 certainly isn't (at least in coach), but of being a luxury aircraft for airlines: if you want to be a truly 'successful' airline, you need to fly the A380 to create 'image' (and to show that you have enough passengers to fill it)

Yes and that type of thinking will get you a ticket to the bankruptcy court.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 73):

Or not. This worldwide recession (depression?) is into it's 5th year already.

Exactly and it doesn't seem to be improving in Europe any time soon.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Seeks To Extend A32S Life posted Tue Jan 22 2008 12:11:19 by TUIflyer
Airbus Seeks To Increase A330/340 Output Further posted Tue Mar 13 2007 04:09:40 by Manni
Airbus Prepares To Fly A380 With Full Load Of Pax posted Tue Aug 1 2006 02:10:55 by Leelaw
A380 - Airbus Close To 'Significant Order' Part #2 posted Thu Jan 17 2013 10:40:50 by iowaman
A380 - Airbus Close To 'Significant Order' posted Thu Dec 13 2012 02:17:37 by afriwing
SQ A380 To HKG/SFO Instead Of FRA/JFK posted Tue Jul 24 2012 04:24:19 by LH422
Airbus To Build New Higher Weight A380 Variant posted Tue May 18 2010 06:18:35 by aviationbuff
High Flying Luxury: News Report Of A380 @ YYZ posted Tue Jun 2 2009 15:48:37 by Matthew11
AA Seeks To Delay Launch Of ORD-PEK posted Fri Aug 29 2008 14:22:46 by Miaami
Airbus Intends To Source 5% Of The A350 From Japan posted Wed Dec 5 2007 05:42:24 by Stitch