Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4628 times:
Useless is a strong word, the A380 does not really suit most US airlines since the US carriers are much more focused on hubs and frequency. For example, assuming landing slots permitted, a US carrier would rather fly two 777s per day between a hub and Tokyo than one A380 - this way they can offer more connection possibilities and better departure/arrival times for more customers. This is why huge airlines like DL, AA and CO do not have the 747 in their fleets, so stepping up to an A380 with even more seats does not seem likely.
In the future, when air traffic grows quickly again, we may see airlines like NW and UA taking another look at the A380 for specific routes, like the West Coast to Japan, the Far East and Australia. I do not see any US carrier ordering the A380 in large numbers, but a conservative order is possible for select routes where time zones limit the range of dep/arrival times, where airport access is limited, or for competition reasons.
No airline, worldwide, has yet ordered a huge number of the A380......its big and its expensive and airlines must be conservative in these difficult times, but in the long run I think the A380 will be a success.
And, dont forget, FedEx will be an A380 operator, so even if you cannot fly on one, your packages can.
Frequentflier From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
In my opinion, A380s will never become mainstream in the US, but will still be seen with 2 airlines in particular: United and NW. Both of these airlines have large hubs outside of the country, and directly compete with the committed A380 carriers (Virgin, Singapore, etc.)
Sjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4563 times:
I agree with the above. The only place I really see the addition of the A380 to US fleets is with United and Northwest. And that makes sense because they are the only US majors even flying the 747 right now. CO,AA, and DL are all going with the 777 which gives them range, cargo capacity, and frequency, and are all easier to fill than a 747.
I would expect we'd see the A380 reach the US on routes like West Coast- Asia (heavily dominated by UA, and from the midwest by NW) and its possible we might see it on routes like LAX-LHR or SFO-LHR.
We also might see NW stick one or two on the DTW-AMS routing.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9723 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4557 times:
I agree with Dutchjet and can't add much more. US airlines focus more on frequency and their hubs. Even though the major US airlines are on the list of top airlines like Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Cathay Pacific Airways, they have different strategies, like more frequencies rather than larger capacities. I expect United Airlines and Northwest Airlines to order/lease the A380 after 2010. I don't see the other major US airlines flying the A380 as the 777 is the ideal aircraft for them for the coming years.
Dutchjet has earnt a place as a respected user on my list. Very good view on the aviation. Are you an airline manager by any chance Dutchjet? You seem to know a lot about the aviation. I'm looking forward to see more good stories from you. I also live in the Netherlands by the way
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4524 times:
TNNH who doesn't like SIA and their ground service: Because Asians aren't that timey, so as to say they do not have planes landing at 1518 etc.. In addition, flight to and from SIN and SFO/LAX for example are daily flights, not 20 - 40 a day like LAX - SFO or JFK - West Coast for example.
As for the €uropeans, same for LH and AF. They fly to Asia and the US daily, occasionally twice daily.
So US carriers because of their larger hub system can offer more frequencies then say European carriers for the sole reason of they have more routings, more options for travelers. In the US if a traveler in the Mid-West wants to go to Europe they don't have to fly to JFK, they have many local choices. If that same person wants to go to Japan they don't have to connect in SFO, they can fly localy from DTW, ORD, DFW etc.
If a British business traveler wants to fly to Asia there's only one option, fly out of LHR. French have to fly out of CDG etc.
The old days of Pan Am where all European flights were funneled through JFK and all Asian flights were funneled through SFO and all Latin America flights were funneled through MIA supported large fleets of 747s. Today the market is much different.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4469 times:
I wouldn't use the word "useless", but at the moment it is not top priority for US airlines to buy a ultra long range high capacity plane. Like it's been mentioned before, for the likes of CO, DL and AA, the 777 is big enough and perfect for their operations. Since UA and NW are large Airbus customers, i expect them to pick up a handful of A380's in the future once the industry is back to it's best and where demand warrants it.
Hardkor From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4327 times:
do any of you know if Air Canada would be interested in the A380 at all? I would think not, I don't think there would be much use for the A380 with the sixe of our population, it just wouldn't make sense
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4321 times:
To Ivo, you are right, the Emeriates order for 22 A380s, in my opinion, is extraordinary; I am not sure what they have in mind but I wish them luck and success. Is the order for 22 now confirmed, or is the first group (about 10) confirmed with the rest still to be negoitiated?
TimeForFlight From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4198 times:
Emirates is smart... I guarantee they will pull a profit with every one of those A380s, especially around Hajj time. Muslims must send at least 1 family members to the Hajj (a yearly event in Mecca) to fulfill religious duties as deemed by the Koran. The airport serving Mecca is literally one major paved surface with a very small terminal. 99% of the time it's relatively empty, but when the Hajj comes each year the tarmac is packed with flights. Emirates will put the A380s on Hajj routes and I'm sure can easily create a combi aircraft to funnel both passengers and crago into their route network. 22 A380s? Sure - It was a great choice for them!
Aq737 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4184 times:
No, AC would see the 380 useless...if they don;t want any more 744s, and want to phase them in the next year, why the bigger one?? As for the 380 in the US, i doubt it. All the carriers don't need it. The only routes the 380 could be used on would be LAX/SFO - SIN/NRT/KIX...UA and NW don;t need it either because their 747s are enough. Even though them may be close to capacity, there is no need for the 380s. Plus, with a limited amount of routes, it is not economical. For example, you can't just operate a daily LAX-NRT and remain profitable. You need to be like DL and have a ATL-LGW-ATL-MIA-ATL thing (intermideate route ATL-MIA-ATL) to use the time. Remember that the aircraft makes $$ only when in the air! For Europe, frequency is needed for all those business passengers. 767s 4x daily JFK-LHR or 777 2/3x daily is better then 1 380! For S.America and Africa - no need/yields
P.S. By the way, Haneda is HAN...
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4157 times:
All of you thinking US airlines don´t need Superjumbos think traffic will not grow anymore, right?
If the estimated 100% increase in air travel will happen within one decade or so even AA and the like will find it hard not buy something bigger than they fly now. Around 2010 it might be the only chance to fly a A380 rather than a 777 to offer more attractive fares than the competition.
National pride is a serious factor. To buy the flagship of the commercial "enemy" is something else than ordering a fleet of low interest A320s. When it comes to replace top-of-the-line aircraft for UA and NW its more likely to me that their choice will be a new 747 version (with more efficient engines).
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1486 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4101 times:
While I generally agree with the many opinions expressed above, I wish to clarify some others:
STT757 : British business travellers heading to Asia have been using Manchester for quite a while already. There are daily flights from there to Asia by a handful of Asian carriers such as Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines etc.
TimeForFlight : Muslim families don't have to send one family member a year to the Haj. Every Muslim is encouraged to perform the Haj pilgrimage "once in a lifetime" if he/she could afford it. Emirates is not going to make a profit dedicating the A380 for Haj traffic . . . and parking it in the desert for ten months out of twelve.
Singapore Airlines currently flies three times daily from Singapore to London-Heathrow. It definitely could use even more capacity for most parts of the year. It is unlikely to be granted further frequencies, certainly not slots that are attractive enough. The A380 would allow it to increase capacity significantly without any increase in frequencies.
Qantas Airways must surely be aiming to put this big bird on the Sydney/Melbourne to London route.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4019 times:
The thing I don't understand about the Emirates order is that if they have a need for that many A380's--why don't they have a single 744 today? (Notwithstanding the freighter from Atlas Air) It seems like they would at least lease a few 744 until their A380s arrive. Do you guys see what I mean?
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4017 times:
Airbus admits its a 'evolution' not a 'revolution.' It's a fantastic piece of metal and plastic, but it will not change transportation as we know it.
There will be some revolutionary composite pieces in her constuction--but she's basically an 'existing technology' aircraft. Even the seat mile costs are evolutionary...fully 12% of the 17% savings is in increased seating..not in new technology. My source is Airbus.
I'm very excited to see them start production.
: I'd also like to know why Emirates hasn't any 744s in its fleet (as opposed, or in addition to the 777s and A330s). Is it something to do with route s
: I think Emirates is more a toy of it's government, than really a serious company. Not only they ordered over 20 A380s, they also ordered tons of 777s
: The reason why Emirates ordered 22 A380's is simple: EK market research predicts Emirates passeneger numbers will triple in 10 years time, therefore t
: Arsenal@LHR, If traffic will triple in 10 years- it must be building fast right now. It would make sense to me given the numbers you provided that the
: The Emirates order has nothing to do with realistic forecasting or financial modeling. This is about a man who has found the world's most expensive to
: I'm glad the UAE, unlike a few of its neighbors, has focused on things other than puritanical religion. If that means them spending absurd amounts on
: I have heard Racko's type of argument before; Maurice Flanagan rejected such claims, insisting people ought to check their facts before screaming abou
: Other than those to be used in a freighter role, the A380 will not have much call for by U.S. carriers than those in other parts of the world. Other t
: Capt.Picard is spot on again. Another reason why EK aren't operating multiple 744's right now is because of slot constrainsts. Emirates cannot expand
: Arsenal@LHR, That does not make sense. If you are slot-constrained, you would operate the largest jet possible- the 744 at the moment. The argument wi
: I'm not sure how I got into this Arsenal, but anyway, some info on Emirates's performance and activities: 1/ Emirates cut costs by 5% in response to a
: What i'm trying to say is that airlines like EK would prefer to operate multiple flights instead of using just 1 big jet like A380/747. I used CDG and
: Emirates order is quite significant. I believe that EK feels they're covered in two ways: 1) Traffic really does triple and they need the capacity or
: I think Sllevin is correct. They are rolling some big dice with twenty-two of the A380 jets though. Even half of the total would be a lot to place wit
: Valid thoughts, which I agree with; BUT, we don't yet know how many pax the A380 will carry *in Emirates's configuration*. It may be the standard 3-cl
: Capt.Picard "Valid thoughts, which I agree with; BUT, we don't yet know how many pax the A380 will carry *in Emirates's configuration*. It may be the
: People are talking loads of crap about Emirates and don't even know where the United Arab Emirates actually are... Some of you should take the time an
: QatarAirways, Those are interesting points. You obviously know your stuff about these airlines. But given these numbers, why wouldn't these guys obtai
: Getting the 744 will be useless for both Qatar Airways and EK. Both EK and QR would have to go through the costs of introducing a new type to the flee
: Fair enough. Thanks for the analysis and answer.
: I think eventually that NWA will purchase the 380. They are already slated to receive widebody 330s. It won't be a defection like if UA bought them. I
46 EA CO AS
: I'll be brief. The A-380 will see use from many international flag carriers, but U.S. carriers really don't have much of a use for it, save for FedEx.
: The A380 is ahead of its time in terms of size. An aircraft of that size will not become necessary on a widespread basis until the middle or end of th
: Udo, I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Add in the MAN & BHX services which are "full", and you end up with 7 aircraft leaving the UK every
: Aviasian, I did not say that Muslim families had to send one family member a year to the Hajj. Hajjis are usually once in a lifetime attendees. And no
: all this talk of emirates not being able to employ their 380s when they come on line is absolute rubbish! the following routes are IDEAL for the 380 a
: Picard, no 744s due to commanaliy.The 773 has similar capacity to the 744 and keeps alot of commonality to the 772.Maybe some pilot pool too ,I'm not
: Ok, thanks guys, for the explanations, a really good thread, this one. Cheers p.s. QatarAirways, I meant no offence to QR, I guess their emergence fro
53 Boeing nut
: To answer the question...... useless indeed is too strong a word. However, as some have said already, it just wouldn't fit into the US sytem very well
: I think Airbus has made it clear that the initial A380 will be one that carriers will 'grow' into. With a modest capacity increase of 4%/annum...the 3
: The sophisticated American flyer went through the "bigger is better" phase back in the 1970's. They now know that the best way to travel is point to
: Reggaebird, There is by no means a certainty that the non-US market will migrate to smaller planes and more remote destinations, or that the US marke
: I don't think UA will buy the A380-800 anytime soon. After all, they already got a big enough plane for US West Coast to Asia services, namely the 747